Dolores O'Riordan Air Rage Incident

Water John

gorm, I consider your posts, the equivalent of racial abuse.
I will not entertain your remarks, you further. Pathetic, jokes at the expense of people with mental health issues. Get a life.

hinault

murpho999 wrote: »

She withdrew it as she was not of sound mind at the time.

I don't buy that.

murpho999

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

It depends. Had she already been diagnosed? Was she prescribed medication? If so, and she failed or refused to take it, then surely that is a wilful disregard for her own safety and the safety of the general public, and then yes, she should be punished.

You're just making a lot of assumptions there.

So you just assume she's not well and if she has medicine then everything is fine and she would be normal?
Therefore if she wasn't normal she must have refused to take her medicine and should be punished?

Your post really is quite arrogant and displays a huge amount of misunderstanding of mental health.

Hitchens

is there a paper trail of all this 'court poorbox' money?

murpho999

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Is that right? And that remark displays absolutely no ignorance on your part no? You know everything about me and the people in my life?

Get off your high horse.

No high horse. Just reacting to what you wrote not to you personnally, so relax.

It's simple a person with a physical ailment would simply go to hospital for treatment and it's no different to patients with mental health.

They are not 'institutionalised' which is a terminology that totally stigmatises them as some sort of prisoner.

murpho999

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

So the victim of the accusation should just take it on the chin?

Or just accept her apology?

murpho999

hinault wrote: »

I don't buy that.

Well just as well you're not a judge.

That's how it was reported from the court on RTE news.

Arbiter of Good Taste

murpho999 wrote: »

You're just making a lot of assumptions there.

So you just assume she's not well and if she has medicine then everything is fine and she would be normal?
Therefore if she wasn't normal she must have refused to take her medicine and should be punished?

Your post really is quite arrogant and displays a huge amount of misunderstanding of mental health.

Wow, your arrogance is astounding. Do you understand irony? Because I'm the second person you've accused of making broad assumptions when that appears to be the only thing you are capable of.

Firstly I did not make any assumptions. I asked a reasonable question. Was she already diagnosed and was she supposed to be taking medicine? Because if she was, well then she was partially responsible for her behaviour if her medication would have prevented or mitigated her erratic behaviour. If not, well then it is arguable that she could not be held responsible.

Secondly, you are the one who is arrogant. I've actually lived with someone who is bi polar, so I know exactly how scary and destructive it can be if not treated properly.

Arbiter of Good Taste

murpho999 wrote: »

Or just accept her apology?

Sure, it's that easy

hinault

murpho999 wrote: »

Well just as well you're not a judge.

That's how it was reported from the court on RTE news.

RTE can report whatever they wish.

A false allegation of sexual assault was made.

If you think being bi-polar mitigates that falsity of those allegations, that's your look out.

It's my look out that I don't buy her excuse.

deaddonkey15

murpho999 wrote: »

No high horse. Just reacting to what you wrote not to you personnally, so relax.

It's simple a person with a physical ailment would simply go to hospital for treatment and it's no different to patients with mental health.

They are not 'institutionalised' which is a terminology that totally stigmatises them as some sort of prisoner.

But it was to me personally since you clearly implied that I was ignorant of mental health issues.

Someone with a physical ailment wouldn't use it as a reason for assaulting 3 people.

murpho999

hinault wrote: »

RTE can report whatever they wish.

A false allegation of sexual assault was made.

If you think being bi-polar mitigates that falsity of those allegations, that's your look out.

It's my look out that I don't buy her excuse.

Do you know a person cannot be held responsible for their actions if they are deemed too be of unsound mind at the time?

She made an allegation at the time but subsequently withdrew it and apologised.
What more do you want?

Bipolarity will make a person do or say irrational things.

Perhaps you should read this.

murpho999

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

But it was to me personally since you clearly implied that I was ignorant of mental health issues.

Someone with a physical ailment wouldn't use it as a reason for assaulting 3 people.

I said your use of the word 'institutionalised' displays ignorance about mental health and I will stand by that.

Why would a person with a physical ailment assault someone?

Are you saying that mental health issues cannot make somebody violent?

murpho999

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Wow, your arrogance is astounding. Do you understand irony? Because I'm the second person you've accused of making broad assumptions when that appears to be the only thing you are capable of.

Firstly I did not make any assumptions. I asked a reasonable question. Was she already diagnosed and was she supposed to be taking medicine? Because if she was, well then she was partially responsible for her behaviour if her medication would have prevented or mitigated her erratic behaviour. If not, well then it is arguable that she could not be held responsible.

Secondly, you are the one who is arrogant. I've actually lived with someone who is bi polar, so I know exactly how scary and destructive it can be if not treated properly.

If she was on medicine or not, how would you know if she was or was not taking it and also if it was working or maybe having the opposite affect.

I do not what posters are trying to get at here.
Trying to make out that this was a major incident.

She pleaded guilty, apologised. Evidence from independent medical people showed she had mental health issues at the time. Judge then applied the law of the land and did not criminalise her.

Why isn't that enough?

hinault

murpho999 wrote: »

She made an allegation at the time but subsequently withdrew it and apologised.
What more do you want?

Bipolarity will make a person do or say irrational things.

Why did she apologise if as you claim she had no control over her utterances?

Maybe her apology is false too.

Hitchens

murpho999 wrote: »

I do not what posters are trying to get at here.
Trying to make out that this was a major incident.

endangering a plane is not classed as a major incident then, are you sure of that?

gormdubhgorm

Water John wrote: »

gorm, I consider your posts, the equivalent of racial abuse.
I will not entertain your remarks, you further. Pathetic, jokes at the expense of people with mental health issues. Get a life.

So there is no humour in mental health? Maybe if they laughed more they would not be in such a state? Laughter is the best medicine John.
The fact that your making mental health a "no go" for humour says it all. Wrong attitude.

gormdubhgorm

hinault wrote: »

Why did she apologise if as you claim she had no control over her utterances?

Maybe her apology is false too.

At the very least there might be a decent song in it!

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So there is no humour in mental health? Maybe if they laughed more they would not be in such a state? Laughter is the best medicine John.
The fact that your making mental health a "no go" for humour says it all. Wrong attitude.

I'm not sure if you are being genuine or just trolling.

murpho999

Hitchens wrote: »

endangering a plane is not classed as a major incident then, are you sure of that?

She didn't endanger a plane. Assaulted an air hostess, which is wrong but not as bad as you're making out.

She didn't threaten to hijack it or kill a pilot.

murpho999

hinault wrote: »

Why did she apologise if as you claim she had no control over her utterances?

Maybe her apology is false too.

As she is better now?

Can one not apologise for past actions?

deaddonkey15

murpho999 wrote: »

I said your use of the word 'institutionalised' displays ignorance about mental health and I will stand by that.

Why would a person with a physical ailment assault someone?

Are you saying that mental health issues cannot make somebody violent?

No, you said the following:

"Your terminology displays your ignorance of mental health."

Which suggests that I have blatant ignorance of mental health, that you are somehow aware of, but that is only revealed by my use of the word institutionalised. Which obviously is completely incorrect.

I didn't say a person with a physical ailment would assault someone. You likened mental illness to a physical ailment which is simply fixed by going to hospital (who's ignorant of mental illness now?) to which I disagreed. A person with a broken arm would go to hospital but the broken arm wouldn't force them to lash out at people nor could it be used as an excuse for lashing out. If someone has mental illness that leads them to:

1. Assault and headbutt people and law enforcement
2. Spit at people.
3. Throw around false accusations of sexual assault.

then they should be under supervision (and probably prohibited from flying) until they are fit to function in society again. Not as simple as a trip to the hospital with a physical ailment.

She was capable of boarding a flight from JFK to Shannon yet is completely absolved of responsibility for assaulting 3 different people? I for one am sceptical, and I think I have a right to say that without baseless accusations of mental health ignorance from people who don't know me.

Water John

I think Donkey, as the judge did, we should accept the evidence as provided by the medical professionals who dealt with her subsequent to the events.

hinault

murpho999 wrote: »

As she is better now?

Can one not apologise for past actions?

Who knows? If the person claims to be not able to have control over their own words and actions then, how can one know that the same person has control over their words and actions now?

One can apologise after the fact.

Better to not make false allegations in the first place, and to behave as a responsible citizen.

the_syco

The court had heard that she had head-butted and spat at a garda as he attempted to arrest

He added that she was treated in exactly the same way as any other member of the public who came before him with an unblemished character.

For some odd reason, I feel that if someone had head-butted and spat at a Garda, they wouldn't have gotten away so lightly!

screamer

Think it's absolutely disgraceful behaviour and she deserved more than a fine. Did she make any attempt to withdraw the awful allegations against the garda? I feel sorry for him I hope he takes it further.

Valetta

the_syco wrote: »

For some odd reason, I feel that if someone had head-butted and spat at a Garda, they wouldn't have gotten away so lightly!

But that's what happened.

Did you mean to say " someone else"?

And do you really think she "got off" lightly?

I certainly wouldn't like to have gone through what she did.

Water John

Screamer, don't wade in roaring, go and read before posting.

deaddonkey15

Water John wrote: »

I think Donkey, as the judge did, we should accept the evidence as provided by the medical professionals who dealt with her subsequent to the events.

Well we've no choice. But do I believe that she had absolutely no control over herself when she assaulted 3 people? No.

murpho999

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

No, you said the following:

"Your terminology displays your ignorance of mental health."

Which suggests that I have blatant ignorance of mental health, that you are somehow aware of, but that is only revealed by my use of the word institutionalised. Which obviously is completely incorrect.

I didn't say a person with a physical ailment would assault someone. You likened mental illness to a physical ailment which is simply fixed by going to hospital (who's ignorant of mental illness now?) to which I disagreed. A person with a broken arm would go to hospital but the broken arm wouldn't force them to lash out at people nor could it be used as an excuse for lashing out. If someone has mental illness that leads them to:

1. Assault and headbutt people and law enforcement
2. Spit at people.
3. Throw around false accusations of sexual assault.

then they should be under supervision (and probably prohibited from flying) until they are fit to function in society again. Not as simple as a trip to the hospital with a physical ailment.

She was capable of boarding a flight from JFK to Shannon yet is completely absolved of responsibility for assaulting 3 different people? I for one am sceptical, and I think I have a right to say that without baseless accusations of mental health ignorance from people who don't know me.

Sorry but I have no time for all this over analysis of posts by your oversensitive self.
You said she should be institutionalised and I have said it's an ignorant comment and I stand by it.

As for the rest of your hyperbole, it only goes to show that she clearly was not of sound mnd getting on the plane. However somehow, JFK scanners and security did not pick it up. Got on the plane, lost the head, assaulted people and got arrested. Obtained medical help, was deemed to be of unsound mind leading to today's judgement.
I don't see what your problem is.

deaddonkey15

murpho999 wrote: »

Sorry but I have no time for all this over analysis of posts by your oversensitive self.
You said she should be institutionalised and I have said it's an ignorant comment and I stand by it.

As for the rest of your hyperbole, it only goes to show that she clearly was not of sound mnd getting on the plane. However somehow, JFK scanners and security did not pick it up. Got on the plane lost the head, assaulted people and got arrested. Obtained medical help, was deemed to be of unsound mind leading to today's judgement.
I don't see what your problem is.

I used one word you don't like and you immediately accuse me of being ignorant of mental health issues, who's the over sensitive one in that situation?

Please show me where I said the bolded part above.

Personally I think that whilst she obviously did have mental health issues, if she was capable of negotiating JFK airport and boarding her flight, she was probably aware of her actions when assaulting 3 people in Shannon.

murpho999

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

I used one word you don't like and you immediately accuse me of being ignorant of mental health issues, who's the over sensitive one in that situation?

Please show me where I said the bolded part above.

Below i where you say institutionalised and then state she should be under some sort supervision.
So using powers of deduction one would assume you mean institutionalised.

Now,no doubt you'll come back with some long winded answer full of faux outrage and minute analysis but that is how your post reads.

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Was she institutionalized after this incident? If she's not responsible for her actions that led to 3 people being assaulted and one accused of sexual assault then she should be under some sort of supervision.

As for this

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Personally I think that whilst she obviously did have mental health issues, if she was capable of negotiating JFK airport and boarding her flight, she was probably aware of her actions when assaulting 3 people in Shannon.

You really are showing ignorance of mental health if you think a mentally ill person cannot get on a flight and then have a meltdown.
Mental health is not as black and white or as predictable as you are trying to make out.

haveringchick

hinault wrote: »

Who knows? If the person claims to be not able to have control over their own words and actions then, how can one know that the same person has control over their words and actions now?

One can apologise after the fact.

Better to not make false allegations in the first place, and to behave as a responsible citizen.

Are you a clinical psychiatrist who has examined the accused? No? Because 3 of them actually did and agreed that she was too unwell to be responsible.
What are your qualifications that you say you know better than they?

haveringchick

screamer wrote: »

Think it's absolutely disgraceful behaviour and she deserved more than a fine. Did she make any attempt to withdraw the awful allegations against the garda? I feel sorry for him I hope he takes it further.

Do you actually know what your talking about? Even a little bit?

haveringchick

hinault wrote: »

RTE can report whatever they wish.

A false allegation of sexual assault was made.

If you think being bi-polar mitigates that falsity of those allegations, that's your look out.

It's my look out that I don't buy her excuse.

Tell us Hinault, which medical school did you get your doctorate from? You obviously disagree with the professional opinion of 3 psychiatric authorities. Is it UCD or Trinity?

haveringchick

murpho999 wrote: »

I said your use of the word 'institutionalised' displays ignorance about mental health and I will stand by that.

Why would a person with a physical ailment assault someone?

Are you saying that mental health issues cannot make somebody violent?

He's saying that mental health issues simply don't exist

Turtyturd

the_syco wrote: »

For some odd reason, I feel that if someone had head-butted and spat at a Garda, they wouldn't have gotten away so lightly!

Not a chance. Not saying I disagree with the outcome but you change the story to a male from inner city Dublin and it would be a different outcome, and his mental health would barely enter the equation. And even if he did walk free this thread would have a different take complaining about the justice system, and the mental health advocates would be nowhere to be found.

Ice Maiden

I don't think there would necessarily be a different sentencing outcome in the case of a man from inner city Dublin, but I agree there would be a markedly different reaction/analysis.
That said, I personally would not dismiss evaluations by psychiatrists having a bearing on the outcome - in the case of anyone.

Water John

Judges would always defer to the medical professionals. I agree that reaction, and I need to examine my own conscience on this, would be different.
But maybe not that different, considering what I read on other forums.

murpho999

Turtyturd wrote: »

Not a chance. Not saying I disagree with the outcome but you change the story to a male from inner city Dublin and it would be a different outcome, and his mental health would barely enter the equation. And even if he did walk free this thread would have a different take complaining about the justice system, and the mental health advocates would be nowhere to be found.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I don't think there would necessarily be a different sentencing outcome in the case of a man from inner city Dublin, but I agree there would be a markedly different reaction/analysis.
That said, I personally would not dismiss evaluations by psychiatrists having a bearing on the outcome - in the case of anyone.

This thread would not exist and there would be no reactions or analysis if this case did not involve a celebrity.

However I fail to see how if mental illness is proven in court, how anyone would be treated any differently than today. The judge made his decision within the confines of the law not just a personal inkling.

screamer

I still think it's disgraceful behaviour and I hope she's not going to be allowed on any flights anytime soon.
My pity still goes to the garda who has to wait a year to find out of she would press ahead with those false sexual assault claims. Wonder if she did would her not being of sound mind at the time have led to a dismissal of the case or charges?????

Turtyturd

murpho999 wrote: »

This thread would not exist and there would be no reactions or analysis if this case did not involve a celebrity.

However I fail to see how if mental illness is proven in court, how anyone would be treated any differently than today. The judge made his decision within the confines of the law not just a personal inkling.

Of course it would exist. It would just be titled something like 'Scumbag head butts and spits at Garda and walks free.'

murpho999

Turtyturd wrote: »

Of course it would exist. It would just be titled something like 'Scumbag head butts and spits at Garda and walks free.'

Don't agree, there was no thread or media hype about this case as an example as he was not famous.

camlinhall

murpho999 wrote: »

She didn't endanger a plane. Assaulted an air hostess, which is wrong but not as bad as you're making out.

She didn't threaten to hijack it or kill a pilot.

Cabin crew are primarily on board for safety reasons and are required by air law to be fully trained accordingly.
It's an issue of safety for all on the flight.