Scum cause bad crash on N7 thankfully only scum injured

McCrack

fullstop wrote: »

Examples?

A quick google search will throw you up many

If you put in "killing burglars" you will get a good few media reports from the UK

bobbyss

splinter65 wrote: »

I would hope that someone would be watching out for small children whose mother has learning difficulties.
It’s not an ideal situation for either them or her.
Being a mother is stressful enough without having difficulties making the correct desicions.
A social worker doing little spot checks every so often would seem sensible.
Of course if you turn out to be the type of mother who practically wrestled a loaded gun off your father, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots a woman and baby, then I think your children shouldn’t have to tolerate you for one second longer, or maybe you don’t agree?

I think the person has an 'intellectual disability'. But it is an interesting point. TUSLA deal with kids who may be abused. People who suspect this are encouraged to report the matter and some people are obliged to.

TUSLA staff are now well aware of this incident. You would wonder what their role would be now.

But are you saying that murderers and suchlike should have their kids taken away from them?

Sofiztikated

Deleted User wrote: »

You're going to use societies that are inherently corrupt, that promote a system of bribery, and so many other factors for why their crime levels continue?

Look, I'm going to defer here, people smarter than me have said it doesn't work, so I'll take their word for it.

I've a mate that did time for aggravated burglary and threatening to kill (Not sure what the exact legal term is, but you know what I'm trying to convey) when he was younger, with some other convictions. I've asked him about it, and he said he didn't think of the consequences, he just did it, that it was a way of life.

He credits smoking more weed and getting a solid job as a reason for his reform.

Omackeral

McCrack wrote: »

If you are on trial in an indicable matter the jury decide guilt or innocence. It is therefore them you need to convince your "head caving" was justified and not the judge presiding.

If the defendant wishes to go into evidence they are addressing the Court.

I know how courts operate, I work in them. You never address the jury directly is my point. You took umbrage with me saying ''your honour'' as if you were teaching me a thing or two. you weren't. I know the jury decides the verdict but the judge is the correct person to address and nobody else, although you generally just call him/her ''Judge'' rather than ''Your Honour'' these days.

McCrack wrote: »

I dont have an answer for your question because its too abstract -if I found myself in a situation you describe I would deal with it the best way I can. My absolute priority would be my kids safety and thereafter my own.

No, it really isn't abstract at all. It couldn't be more clear. 'Doing what it takes' to me would be neutralising the threat without hesitation and the handiest way to do that is probably smashing the prick with a blunt object. As you said kids come first, dirt bag last.

kstand

freddie1970 wrote: »

yes they put their lives on the line ...we should introduce chain gangs or some sort of hard physical labour for scum like this...its ironic that looking after the human rights of these scum effects the rights of the innocent..
we have no deterrent in this country and its only getting worse.

And that’s the crux of the problem - you have a brigade out there who are always looking to find victims - believing that there is some elite who are intent on oppressing minorities. The human rights brigade have a lot to answer for and what we are seeing is going to get a lot worse until people realise enough is enough and that the courts hands are tied by courts in the EU and start to take matters into their own hands. This is the result of 30/40 years of rampant liberalism - the same element are more concerned with the rights of these scumbags than those of their victims. The only thing these scumbags understand is the cat and the bayonet.

Vronsky

McCrack wrote: »

Good man

Depending on how far you "cave their fcuking head" you might possibly find yourself serving a life sentence or at a minimum a few years depending on the severity of the caving in.

Unlikely, Nally wasn't convicted for shooting Frog Ward.

You'd be hard pushed to find a jury that will convict for using force to resist home invasion.

PeterParker957

bobbyss wrote: »

splinter65 wrote: »

I would hope that someone would be watching out for small children whose mother has learning difficulties.
It’s not an ideal situation for either them or her.
Being a mother is stressful enough without having difficulties making the correct desicions.
A social worker doing little spot checks every so often would seem sensible.
Of course if you turn out to be the type of mother who practically wrestled a loaded gun off your father, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots a woman and baby, then I think your children shouldn’t have to tolerate you for one second longer, or maybe you don’t agree?

I think the person has an 'intellectual disability'. But it is an interesting point. TUSLA deal with kids who may be abused. People who suspect this are encouraged to report the matter and some people are obliged to.

TUSLA staff are now well aware of this incident. You would wonder what their role would be now.

But are you saying that murderers and suchlike should have their kids taken away from them?

Too bloody right they shoukd!

Are Am Eye

Some bloke just drove his car at a bunch of kids out in blanchardstown.
Clipped an eleven year old.

tayto lover

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Some bloke just drove his car at a bunch of kids out in blanchardstown.
Clipped an eleven year old.

Pudsy Ryan must have written that.

splinter65

bobbyss wrote: »

I think the person has an 'intellectual disability'. But it is an interesting point. TUSLA deal with kids who may be abused. People who suspect this are encouraged to report the matter and some people are obliged to.

TUSLA staff are now well aware of this incident. You would wonder what their role would be now.

But are you saying that murderers and suchlike should have their kids taken away from them?

Yes I think that murderers should be put in prison for a very long time and their children be given the opportunity to have the same life as every other child whose parent is not a murderer.

McCrack

Omackeral wrote: »

I know how courts operate, I work in them. You never address the jury directly is my point. You took umbrage with me saying ''your honour'' as if you were teaching me a thing or two. you weren't. I know the jury decides the verdict but the judge is the correct person to address and nobody else, although you generally just call him/her ''Judge'' rather than ''Your Honour'' these days.



No, it really isn't abstract at all. It couldn't be more clear. 'Doing what it takes' to me would be neutralising the threat without hesitation and the handiest way to do that is probably smashing the prick with a blunt object. As you said kids come first, dirt bag last.

It has never been "your honour" in Ireland which is an Americanism. It has always been "Judge" and certainty since the foundation of the State.

Your question is too abstract, I cant possibly answer it without having been in that situation..sure I could act the hardman and tell you id "cave his fcukung head in" but I won't.

If an intruder enters your home, and you feel you or your family's life is in danger, of course you are going to attack. And rightly so (if one is able).

What's the alternatives?

pilly

end of the road wrote:

as we have established, the pc brigade do not exist, they are a myth. there is no such brigade. this issue is nothing like rotherham.

What's this we business pale face?

Fr_Dougal

end of the road wrote: »

it more points to the judiciary only being able to give sentences within the laws they have to work with, which aren't fit for purpose.
the asalt at least should see the criminal in that story go to jail for a very long time. sterilisation and state sanctioned murder won't be happening so there is no point in ranting about it, they don't work anyway.
if you want something done, protest for long sentences, that has a great chance of happening and you would get wide spread support from the vast majority of us.



what judge carney did was perfectly democratic. he would have had good reason to do what he did.



the reason it is off the table is not only that it's murder, but it's not a solution to anything.



we are never going to have a deterrent in this country. deterrents only work for those of us who aren't planning on commiting crime. focusing on deterrents is a waste of time, we need to focus on simply protecting society and punishing the criminals.



wouldn't be enough ultimately. at least not after a few cases of that.



america also has a very harsh penal system and has one of the highest if not the highest crime rate in the world.
also, Singapore's crime rate isn't as low as is often made out.

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Source please?
Source please?
Source please?

sdanseo

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

The Gardai will probably get criticised for pursuing the vehicle and endangering the general public.

And the obligatory GSOC investigation when it's obvious what happened.

As a member of the general public who was caught up in the delay I think that's a risk worth taking to chase them. You can't wrap the world in cotton wool - they'd never be caught otherwise.

GSOC involvement is a mere formality here.

What upset me the most was the number of selfish morons using the hard shoulder to skip the queue when it was clear there was an accident ahead. I'd say around 50 cars passed me while I waited patiently. If I thought any of them would actually get fined I'd send in the dashcam footage, could have been ambulances or other ES vehicles needing to urgently get to the accident site.

boardise

Human rights are grand -there's a well worked out and evolved system broadly operating in the more stable democratic parts of the world.
But is there not a commonsense assumption of equilibrium -I don't infringe yours and you don't infringe mine. If, however, you do infringe my human rights -as far as I'm concerned you forfeit some of your own ...you're on the wrong side of the line , the see-saw is out of balance.
What drives decent people to distraction is that the imbalance favours the wrongdoers and not the victims....and it doesn't have to be like this.
Crime should COST -why do so many persist in criminal activities ? Because it pays or it costs little or is virtually cost free. Many criminals are quite intelligent beings who can work out the equations. Those paying the high costs of crime are not just the amorphous mass of taxpayers but particularly the many elderly people or lone dwellers who suffer the actual consequences of burglary robbery and assault etc. or else live restricted lives of fear and apprehension . It's impossible to quantify the diminution and impoverishment of lifestyle that ensues from the kind of rampant crime being discussed here.

dublinman1990

After getting this story on the news bulletins yesterday; I do hope that the scum who were caught from this incident have to endure a long life of deep personal hell in their miserable little lives for the rest of their days. A good beginning to this hell would be severe heavy jail sentences being provided to them by our own judiciary.

That will certainly make my 2018 go off to a very good start indeed.

The second driver who was the innocent victim of the crash driving the SUV escaped the worst of it with having treatment for minor injuries at Naas General Hospital.

That's some good news to come out today. I hope he gets well soon after this ordeal.

http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/teen-serious-condition-after-being-14090236

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Pudsy Ryan must have written that.

Ahhh, that brings memories back!!!

Are Am Eye

McCrack wrote: »

It has never been "your honour" in Ireland which is an Americanism. It has always been "Judge" and certainty since the foundation of the State.

It was always MuLord in the Irish Courts except for the District Court where Judge would suffice. Some recent law allowed Judge in place of My Lord in the higher courts and so is sometimes used.

sligojoek

Are Am Eye wrote: »

It was always MuLord in the Irish Courts except for the District Court where Judge would suffice. Some recent law allowed Judge in place of My Lord in the higher courts and so is sometimes used.

That sounds right. I was giving evidence years ago, mid nineties, and asked my
solicitor what to call the judge. The answer was 'Judge' or 'My Lord'.

boardise

Was just scanning The Journal.ie and noticed that each story headlined has a facility for comments at the end.
The one about the teenage rampage has 'no comments' . Interesting ,no ?

Wheeliebin30

end of the road and his sinn fein political views makes for interesting reading.

Ever read the sinn fein manifesto on travellers?

Ill save you the painful task.

Basically its the governments fault.....

Captain Obvious

boardise wrote: »

Was just scanning The Journal.ie and noticed that each story headlined has a facility for comments at the end.
The one about the teenage rampage has 'no comments' . Interesting ,no ?

No, they turn off comments for cases before the court.

Hilly Bill

Apparently there was a bit of a scuffle and the car drove after the young lad.

Sofiztikated

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Look, I'm going to defer here, people smarter than me have said it doesn't work, so I'll take their word for it.

This is what bothers me. Everyone who is opposed to stronger punishments for criminals refers to the US as the example of it failing. That doesn't take into account that the US has a very different history, culture, and set of societies than Ireland or Europe. Instead, it just assumes that we are the same, and therefore our society would react the same way that the American society does.

However, we don't (currently) have the degree of gang system, the history of violent crime, the commonplace attitude to firearms, etc. All of these things will alter the way that criminals view both the law and the punishment that is enacted.

We don't know that much harsher applications of punishment wouldn't be a deterrent to repeat offenders in Europe. We just know that it doesn't work "well" in the US.

I've a mate that did time for aggravated burglary and threatening to kill (Not sure what the exact legal term is, but you know what I'm trying to convey) when he was younger, with some other convictions. I've asked him about it, and he said he didn't think of the consequences, he just did it, that it was a way of life.

I've heard the same from those doing violent crime. They didn't think of the consequences. They acted on impulse, emotions, whatever. And they just did it. Yup. I understand that. But that suggests nothing will prevent such cases except for the circumstances of the incident.

The deterrent is there for the criminals who have time to consider whether they might be caught, and what happens after. For those criminals where there is time to consider the consequences.

Now, perhaps they won't consider the consequences. Fine. They still should be facing punishment that is suitable to their crime, and frankly, anyone who is a repeat offender is aware of the punishments involves and should be treated harsher than the rest. They've made their choice to reject normal society.

He credits smoking more weed and getting a solid job as a reason for his reform.

I've made the case on boards that rehabilitation can only effectively occur when criminals are educated with employable skills, given a solid chance for reasonable employment, and given the opportunity to rejoin society with their records cleaned. And I still believe that.

However, for rehabilitation to occur, there must also be a stick. A boogeyman. The punishment that is there if they reject the generous offer of society to reform. Extended prison time isn't feasible if crime continues to increase, since more prisons will be needed and the costs involved will increase too. There needs to be something more for repeat offenders, that says "enough is enough". I don't see prison time alone as being effective for that.

mfceiling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Extended prison time isn't feasible if crime continues to increase, since more prisons will be needed and the costs involved will increase too. There needs to be something more for repeat offenders, that says "enough is enough". I don't see prison time alone as being effective for that.

All well and good but there are scum who will never learn. Who don't want rehabilitation. Who aren't interested in education. Who don't want a 9 - 5 job with 2 kids and a wife. Who don't want to contribute to a normal society.

What then? No amount of softly softly will work here. I'm tired of listening to sob stories about no facilities for them or a tough upbringing or give them another chance for the 100th time. At some point with these serial offenders it's time to lock them up and throw away the key. No crimes can be committed in an 8 x 8 cell.

Comhrá

Whatever about the rights or wrongs of long prison sentences for criminals or whether rehabilitation works, can there ever be any alternative for the wanton criminal with 20, 30, 40, 100 previous convictions other than 15+ years behind bars?

Is the safely and protection of the victims, many of them elderly, lone dwellers in isolation, not a bigger and more immediate concern for our authorities than finding ways to avoid imprisoning the repeat violent criminal?

The first function of imprisonment is punishment, and repeat violent career offenders really don't understand any other incentive not to offend. For every imprisoned career criminal, there's one more chance of a vulnerable citizen being safer in their home at night.

Lock up the recidivists, I say...... for a long time.

mfceiling

mfceiling wrote: »

All well and good but there are scum who will never learn. Who don't want rehabilitation. Who aren't interested in education. Who don't want a 9 - 5 job with 2 kids and a wife. Who don't want to contribute to a normal society.

What then? No amount of softly softly will work here. I'm tired of listening to sob stories about no facilities for them or a tough upbringing or give them another chance for the 100th time. At some point with these serial offenders it's time to lock them up and throw away the key. No crimes can be committed in an 8 x 8 cell.

I think you missed my point. Effective Rehabilitation should be there for those who are interested in not repeating their past mistakes, and who wish to rejoin society as law-abiding members of society. Repeat offenders have chosen not to accept rehabilitation and therefore should be hit with increasingly larger punishments. Extended Prison time initially, but later other forms of punishments should be introduced. Ultimately ending with capital punishment.

Galwayguy35

Why do all these pricks get free legal aid?

When this goes to court a barrister paid for by the taxpayer will spin out a sob story about their hard life blah blah blah and they will spend a cushy year or two in prison before being out on the streets again.

No sign of Connors or Collins on the airwaves when it's Pavees doing the criminal activities.

McCrack

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Why do all these pricks get free legal aid?

When this goes to court a barrister paid for by the taxpayer will spin out a sob story about their hard life blah blah blah and they will spend a cushy year or two in prison before being out on the streets again.

No sign of Connors or Collins on the airwaves when it's Pavees doing the criminal activities.

Everyone is entitled to legal representation when charged with an offence (whether they plead guilty or run a trial) and if they cannot afford to pay privately the State has obligations to provide legal representation which is through the Criminal Legal Aid payments scheme.

Hope you can understand.

PeterParker957

McCrack wrote: »

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Why do all these pricks get free legal aid?

When this goes to court a barrister paid for by the taxpayer will spin out a sob story about their hard life blah blah blah and they will spend a cushy year or two in prison before being out on the streets again.

No sign of Connors or Collins on the airwaves when it's Pavees doing the criminal activities.

Everyone is entitled to legal representation when charged with an offence (whether they plead guilty or run a trial) and if they cannot afford to pay privately the State has obligations to provide legal representation which is through the Criminal Legal Aid payments scheme.

Hope you can understand.

I can smell the incense from here....

All of the above should only apply for first offences. Previous convictions and why the hell should we pay????

Comhrá

Everyone is entitled to legal representation when charged with an offence (whether they plead guilty or run a trial) and if they cannot afford to pay privately the State has obligations to provide legal representation which is through the Criminal Legal Aid payments scheme.

Hope you can understand.

even after 100 previous offences including violent robberies?

Sorry, I don't understand.

McCrack

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I can smell the incense from here....

All of the above should only apply for first offences. Previous convictions and why the hell should we pay????

Again everyone is entitled to have legal representation when brought before a Court.

A persons prior criminal history is irrelevant to the matter before the Court. They are not on trial for previous matters already disposed of and they cannot be denied legal representation because of past convictions.

When it comes to sentencing then previous convictions become very relevant.

elperello

What is the alternative to FLA if the defendant has no access to funds?

Captain Obvious

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Why do all these pricks get free legal aid?

When this goes to court a barrister paid for by the taxpayer will spin out a sob story about their hard life blah blah blah and they will spend a cushy year or two in prison before being out on the streets again.

No sign of Connors or Collins on the airwaves when it's Pavees doing the criminal activities.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse then it makes sense to provide everyone with the means to access a lawyer. I don't think legal aid is a big issue. I think it should be expanded massively actually. Make it more accessible to all. Minor offences, civil law, family law. Of all the issues with the legal system this is by far the least troublesome and burdensome.

McCrack

elperello wrote: »

What is the alternative to FLA if the defendant has no access to funds?

If a defendant doesn't have the means (eg in receipt of social welfare) he will be granted a legal aid certificate

If he is working he will have to pay for his own legal representation (generally).

PeterParker957

McCrack wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I can smell the incense from here....

All of the above should only apply for first offences. Previous convictions and why the hell should we pay????

Again everyone is entitled to have legal representation when brought before a Court.

A persons prior criminal history is irrelevant to the matter before the Court. They are not on trial for previous matters already disposed of and they cannot be denied legal representation because of past convictions.

When it comes to sentencing then previous convictions become very relevant.

And there we have the reason why crime is endemic and criminals fear nothing.

I can't believe someone actually believes that a scumbag with 100 + convictions deserves OUR money to help them .

Captain Obvious

PeterParker957 wrote: »

And there we have the reason why crime is endemic and criminals fear nothing.

I can't believe someone actually believes that a scumbag with 100 + convictions deserves OUR money to help them .

It's not to help them, it's to ensure their conviction is as sound as can be. Rail roading an idiot criminal because he cannot afford legal representation is not the kind of justice system I'd like us to have. I'd rather people focus their anger on the terrible sentancing and non-existent reform.

PeterParker957

McCrack wrote: »

elperello wrote: »

What is the alternative to FLA if the defendant has no access to funds?

If a defendant doesn't have the means (eg in receipt of social welfare) he will be granted a legal aid certificate

If he is working he will have to pay for his own legal representation (generally).

So criminal scum get taxpayer money and hardworking law abiding people get screwed.

Welcome to Ireland.

McCrack

We are possibly banging our heads off a wall here with certain posters

elperello

McCrack wrote: »

If a defendant doesn't have the means (eg in receipt of social welfare) he will be granted a legal aid certificate

If he is working he will have to pay for his own legal representation (generally).

Sorry I phrased that badly.
I meant what were the anti FLA posters suggesting in cases where the defendant has no access to funds?

PeterParker957

McCrack wrote: »

We are possibly banging our heads off a wall here with certain posters

Yes. You

McCrack

elperello wrote: »

Sorry I phrased that badly.
I meant what were the anti FLA posters suggesting in cases where the defendant has no access to funds?

Presumably that the defendant acts for himself anf does the best job he can against the solicitor/barristers retained by the DPP!!

McCrack

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Yes. You

Are you working for boards.ie?

I sometimes wonder if boards have trolls amongst is to keep the momentum going

Captain Obvious

McCrack wrote: »

Presumably that the defendant acts for himself anf does the best job he can against the solicitor/barristers retained by the DPP!!

Doesn't work too well when Gardaí have to do it, can;t see how a criminal can be expected to.

elperello

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doesn't work too well when Gardaí have to do it, can;t see how a criminal can be expected to.

I think FLA while obviously open to abuse is an important element of our justice system.
The law is for one reason or other a complex area.
I would prefer that we invest in trying to ensure that convictions are safe.

Odhinn

Negative_G wrote: »

All of the above point to a softly softly approach from the judiciary reinforced by bleeding hearts in the public and in the Dail.

I couldn't care less about his background or childhood. The moment you step into someone's home and strike them over the head with an object is the moment something drastic needs to be done. If draconian methods like sterilisation or execution is the only sure fire way, then it gets my vote.

I suspect crime rates would plummet overnight. I wonder why.

There's not one mention of what previous sentences he received, so you've no basis for your wee rant at all.

McCrack

McCrack wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to legal representation when charged with an offence (whether they plead guilty or run a trial) and if they cannot afford to pay privately the State has obligations to provide legal representation which is through the Criminal Legal Aid payments scheme.

Hope you can understand.

Even TDs

Allinall

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even TDs

And binmen.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's not to help them, it's to ensure their conviction is as sound as can be. Rail roading an idiot criminal because he cannot afford legal representation is not the kind of justice system I'd like us to have. I'd rather people focus their anger on the terrible sentancing and non-existent reform.

Agreed. Also removal of adequate legal counsel provides "cracks" for minority or special interest groups to scream discrimination, and influence appeals or sentencing.

I don't have an issue with free legal counsel. Everyone deserves the right to adequate counsel. I have more of an issue with the legal counsels increasing use of psychological disorders or other psychological nonsense as grounds for a suspended sentence or more lenient sentencing. Psychology is notoriously inaccurate on the research area but all these disorders/factors are being accepted as fact, and more importantly, as an excuse for criminals behavior.