Man gives little scrote a smack of a hurl and gets 4 year sentence?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The age of criminal responsibility ranges between 10 and 12 years of age. The only difference with minors is that society, although it might lock them up, tries harder to pursue rehabilitation than it does with adult prisoners.

I'm not sure what you'd prefer, bring back hanging for 10-year olds convicted of damaging property, like as existed in the 17th century? After all, you do admit to wishing that Alan Curtis had "broken all of their skulls".

Although you've taken my post and pushed your nonsensical interpretation of it to the extreme, I would say that yes, I would rather have hangings for 10 year olds than have the current system, which is no punishment whatsoever.


Hang a few teenagers and suddenly you'll notice a lot of them quietening down. Keep slapping their wrists and you'll notice that the issues grow and grow, as has been the case in Ireland (and the UK) for the past decade (and longer).


People are literally being terrorised (and I use the word literally in the literal sense of it). There are people that are genuinely afraid to leave their houses for fear of being tormented, attacked, etc.


If I, and a group of my friends deliberately antagonised someone, made their daily life a misery, caused criminal damage (breaking windows, damaging car) insulted them and physically pushed and pulled out of them, slapped them around etc. the Gardai wouldn't have any interest and the general public would give out to the victim because "they're just kids having fun".




People don't batter teenagers with hurls because there's nothing else to do of an evening. It was done for a reason.

I see sheep

I see sheep wrote: »

Did you ever egg someone's house or something when you were a kid?

No.

sonic85

I see sheep wrote: »

I'm not saying damaging a car doesn't matter but there has to be some perspective.

Did you ever egg someone's house or something when you were a kid?

Would the owner have been ok smashing your skull in if he caught you?

People need to get a grip, snowflake is the word I think.

I've never intentionally went out and damaged anyones property. I've never stolen or interfered with something owned by someone else in any way. Do you know why? I know right from wrong and I was brought up to show respect. It's not hard to do - just don't be a cnut. Some people though just cant help themselves.

Theres nothing snowflake about wanting to keep you and your property in one piece

worded

Day time Video of an assault by a group of youths against a man near the criminal courts

What can happen if you have no Hurley ....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/video-shows-thugs-brutally-attack-14665592.amp

joeguevara

sonic85 wrote: »

I've never intentionally went out and damaged anyones property. I've never stolen or interfered with something owned by someone else in any way. Do you know why? I know right from wrong and I was brought up to show respect. It's not hard to do - just don't be a cnut. Some people though just cant help themselves.

Theres nothing snowflake about wanting to keep you and your property in one piece

You are exactly right and I don't think many people are arguing against your point of view. You previously said that anyone who damages your property should rot in jail which is the Crux of this thread. Yes they should be punished for their actions but not hit across the head with a Hurley causing permanent brain damage.

Lefty Bicek

I see sheep wrote: »

I'm not saying damaging a car doesn't matter but there has to be some perspective.

Did you ever egg someone's house or something when you were a kid?

Would the owner have been ok smashing your skull in if he caught you?

People need to get a grip, snowflake is the word I think.

You haven't a clue.

WTF has egging a house got to do with anything here ?

Do you, just for example, own a car ?

Do you have a clue how it is to drive with a side mirror missing ? The hassle of replacing it ? Of getting someone to do it if you can't do it yourself ? Of your valuable time involved in all that ? Of the stress in worrying that you're going to meet an awkward cop on your way to the job that pays the money that you now have to spend on fixing the mirror ? Points on the licence ? Getting stitched up by an insurance company in an accident where you might be the innocent party ?

Grow up.

FishOnABike

I see sheep wrote: »

Any sane man, who isn't a thug, would walk outside and clear them off, without needing a weapon.

Care to explain how one would simply clear off twenty antisocial feral gurriers?

Bigboldworld

worded wrote: »

Day time Video of an assault by a group of youths against a man near the criminal courts

What can happen if you have no Hurley ....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/video-shows-thugs-brutally-attack-14665592.amp

And guaranteed not one of these little ****s got a conviction for the attack, this is exactly the thing that happens when one tries to ‘’talk’’ with gangs of feral kids as the good judge suggests, they attack like a pack of wild dogs, a shower of wasters who will remain a drain on society for their entire adult life, what is one to do, I truly despair for parts of Dublin

sonic85

joeguevara wrote: »

You are exactly right and I don't think many people are arguing against your point of view. You previously said that anyone who damages your property should rot in jail which is the Crux of this thread. Yes they should be punished for their actions but not hit across the head with a Hurley causing permanent brain damage.

Yes and no. This man made the error of actually following the group when they were moving away. In that context what he did was OTT. If however they didn't leave and were still standing outside the house and a plank was swung at him then the scrote would be fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Listen - in an ideal world we could hang around while crimes are being committed call the Guards and let them handle it but I'd be willing to bet 9 times out of 10 there would be no satisfactory conclusion. People who vandalize or destroy things that don't belong to them need to be punished accordingly and not excused or given a slap on the wrist. These scum are just laughing at the normal law abiding citizen.

Lefty Bicek

FishOnABike wrote: »

Care to explain how one would simply clear off twenty antisocial feral gurriers?

Speak in a calm, stern, and authoritative manner at all times.

'I say, you there, young fellows. Yes, you with the hoodies. Now look here, be good chaps and jog on there would you ? Dashed inconvenient, all this terrorising of one's property and person, day in and day out. Jolly Good Show.'

A swagger stick is optional. A still upper lip, essential.

Assetbacked

Fair play Alan Curtis, can't say David McClelland didn't deserve it. It likely would not make much of a difference to his day to day life to be a bigger dope now and hopefully his little toerag mates got a good scare.

scamalert

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Speak in a calm, stern, and authoritative manner at all times.

'I say, you there, young fellows. Yes, you with the hoodies. Now look here, be good chaps and jog on there would you ? Dashed inconvenient, all this terrorising of one's property and person, day in and day out. Jolly Good Show.'

A swagger stick is optional. A still upper lip, essential.

get the fck out really :pac: might work for 10-12 yr olds at best, if proper scum youd be having your lip on the ground for sure.


stack of 20:1 and nothing to use is like asking for instant death.


that video shows exactly how these feral scum operate.

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Speak in a calm, stern, and authoritative manner at all times.

'I say, you there, young fellows. Yes, you with the hoodies. Now look here, be good chaps and jog on there would you ? Dashed inconvenient, all this terrorising of one's property and person, day in and day out. Jolly Good Show.'

A swagger stick is optional. A still upper lip, essential.

As I said in my first post on this thread if he had connected with the hurley outside his house after he confronted the nominated car damager it is likely he would have not been found guilty. It was the fact that he ran after his victim and then hit him which caused his guilty verdict.

People have the right to protect their home and property in my opinion. But a line has to be drawn about where that protection ends and timing of attacks or else we will descend into lawlessness.

joeguevara

scamalert wrote: »

get the fck out really :pac: might work for 10-12 yr olds at best, if proper scum youd be having your lip on the ground for sure.


stack of 20:1 and nothing to use is like asking for instant death.


that video shows exactly how these feral scum operate.

I think the poster was pulling the p1ss.

Lefty Bicek

Assetbacked wrote: »

Fair play Alan Curtis, can't say David McClelland didn't deserve it. It likely would not make much of a difference to his day to day life to be a bigger dope now and hopefully his little toerag mates got a good scare.

:eek::D:D:D

worded

Bigboldworld wrote: »

And guaranteed not one of these little ****s got a conviction for the attack, this is exactly the thing that happens when one tries to ‘’talk’’ with gangs of feral kids as the good judge suggests, they attack like a pack of wild dogs, a shower of wasters who will remain a drain on society for their entire adult life, what is one to do, I truly despair for parts of Dublin

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/video-shows-thugs-brutally-attack-14665592.amp

Yet this part of Dublin you despair for is near the bridewelll police station and criminal courts and Smithfield. Its policed quite well as it’s not far from the four courts also

I lived near there for 10 years and frequently passed that park. Dublin has gone to the dogs

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

As I said in my first post on this thread if he had connected with the hurley outside his house after he confronted the nominated car damager it is likely he would have not been found guilty. It was the fact that he ran after his victim and then hit him which caused his guilty verdict.

People have the right to protect their home and property in my opinion. But a line has to be drawn about where that protection ends and timing of attacks or else we will descend into lawlessness.

I'm not appealing for Mr. Curtis to be let off scot-free.

Sometimes bad deeds have acceptable upsides, and this, for me, is one of those times.

I see from the thread, that I am not alone in that.

lalababa

JupiterKid wrote: »

The criminal justice system in this country is clearly very dysfunctional. You hear of people with 100, 200+ convictions, often ones for serious assault and criminal damage, serving suspended or extremely light sentences and in and out like a revolving door.

It is clearly not working. I am a firm believer in rehabilitative justice but I can completely understand how people get frustrated when they see their property vandalised and stolen, their families and elderly relatives intimidated, their livelihoods under threat and decide to take the law into their own hands.

When my own car was broken into, hot wired, stolen from my place in 2010 and was found burnt out in Cherry Orchard I was very upset and angry and although I reported the crime and the Gardai were very helpful no-one was arrested and charged and I was told that in the extremely unlikely event that anyone was caught for the theft it would probably not result in a custodial sentence.

My late father and I used to argue over the justice system years back when he would point out that low life who had zero respect for law and order and the rights of others deserved to be marked for life as harsh measures in terms of retaliation and justice was the only language they understood and I would counter by arguing that a more constructive approach was better but I have increasingly come around to his reasoning as I believe there is just really no incentive for these scumbags - and yes, they are scumbags - to change their ways unless they are punished and that punishment meted out acts as a deterrent.

The judges who give out very lenient sentences for such crimes appear to be completely out of touch with the mood of the general public on this matter and it seems to me that it is very easy for people to take the moral high ground on criminality until they themselves or their family and loved ones are the targets of this criminal behavior.

But in their gated communities they very very rarely are.

I agree with you about consequences such as manual labour, reduced Dole, harsher sentences and conditions. But AFAIK there is no proper rehabilitation services (whatever they are?)in Irish prisons.

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I'm not appealing for Mr. Curtis to be let off scot-free.

Sometimes bad deeds have acceptable upsides, and this, for me, is one of those times.

I see from the thread, that I am not alone in that.

I agree with you. Sometimes cases come along where jail is too good for people and retribution is deserved and indeed should be applauded. A good example is the case where no charges were brought against the father who shot a man who molested his daughter. I tried to link the by times report but couldn't.

But the case being discussed is not the same or at least not on the facts we know. We don't know if the victim was in anyway involved with the car damage. As a society we would be entering very dangerous territory if it was considered acceptable or having an upside when a 16 year old is left with permanent brain damage based solely on the belief of someone in a rage with anger issues.

It could lead to completely innocent people receiving punishment beatings.

worded

joeguevara wrote: »

As I said in my first post on this thread if he had connected with the hurley outside his house after he confronted the nominated car damager it is likely he would have not been found guilty. It was the fact that he ran after his victim and then hit him which caused his guilty verdict.

People have the right to protect their home and property in my opinion. But a line has to be drawn about where that protection ends and timing of attacks or else we will descend into lawlessness.

When Adrenalin kicks in its impossible to determine how anyone, including you would react in the same situation against 20 youths that leg it and you are holding a weapon. This could have been an ongoing problem at his moms house and his car has been tampered with and a plank lashed out at him.

So once off his property he is meant to just watch them run off? I’d say the majority of people in the same situation would give chase.

My house was burgled as a home alone 16 year old by four men older than me. I startled them and ran down stairs and they scaled the back wall and ran accross a field the fitter was first and the gap widened to the less fit last one.

I jumped on the wall to give chase and slipped and tore my leg. I watched as they made their escape. I too armed myself and they were the lucky ones as I was super fit in a running club at the time and trained 4 times a week !

I feel sorry for this fellow, he got an adrenaline rush and ran with it. Most men with balls would do the same .....

Unless you are in a similar situation you can’t know how you would react

scamalert

One thing that isnt clear what made them scatter ? if they were tough on keying car and trying to hit him, id say he pretty much knew and flipped who will be on the ground once they were moving.

worded

Googled for the judge name and read a few cases ....

He is human and has made a sentencing error IMHO

I was expecting to see an older more
Conservative judge

joeguevara

worded wrote: »

When Adrenalin kicks in its impossible to determine how anyone, including you would react in the same situation against 20 youths that leg it and you are holding a weapon. This could have been an ongoing problem at his moms house and his car has been tampered with and a plank lashed out at him.

So once off his property he is meant to just watch them run off? I’d say the majority of people in the same situation would give chase.

My house was burgled as a home alone 16 year old by four men older than me. I startled them and ran down stairs and they scaled the back wall and ran accross a field the fitter was first and the gap widened to the less fit last one.

I jumped on the wall to give chase and slipped and tore my leg. I watched as they made their escape. I too armed myself and they were the lucky ones as I was super fit in a running club at the time and trained 4 times a week !

I feel sorry for this fellow, he got an adrenaline rush and ran with it. Most men with balls would do the same .....

Unless you are in a similar situation you can’t know how you would react

I'm not going to argue with any part of your post because I whehesrtedly agree with 99% of it. Nobody knows what they would do unless they are in the same situation and adrenaline does give a person a fight or flight response. In your example the people had entered your property and put you and your families lives in danger. The adrenaline and the fear that fuelled it wouldn't have subsided until you confronted the people and I doubt anyone would argue against the results of your actions if you had caught them.

But the situation in this thread is different as the fear for life wasn't evident and any adrenaline should have subsided before the assault took place. Also the assault was not proportionate to the crime. Finally he had no proof that who he assaulted did it.

One thing I don't agree with is your comment about men with balls would have done what this guy did. People who don't confront attackers aren't less of a man than someone who does.

I hope you have got over your burgalry. I can't think of many things that are worse to waking up and finding people in your house.

worded

joeguevara wrote: »

I'm not going to argue with any part of your post because I whehesrtedly agree with 99% of it. Nobody knows what they would do unless they are in the same situation and adrenaline does give a person a fight or flight response. In your example the people had entered your property and put you and your families lives in danger. The adrenaline and the fear that fuelled it wouldn't have subsided until you confronted the people and I doubt anyone would argue against the results of your actions if you had caught them.

But the situation in this thread is different as the fear for life wasn't evident and any adrenaline should have subsided before the assault took place.

>>>>>> The Adrenalin can last for hours afterwards and varies from individual to individual.

Also the assault was not proportionate to the crime.

>>>>> his aim was bad but it could have been a scuffle.


Finally he had no proof that who he assaulted did it.

>>>>> how do you know he didn’t see him. Regardless he tried to plank him !



One thing I don't agree with is your comment about men with balls would have done what this guy did. People who don't confront attackers aren't less of a man than someone who does.

I hope you have got over your burgalry. I can't think of many things that are worse to waking up and finding people in your house.

The burglary was many years ago and thanks it’s in the past and mostly forgotten about. I have heard that any justice has to be delivered on the property and you can’t give chase. So to exaggerate, a home invasion takes place and home destroyed. Youth run past your gate while you give chase and you stop at your property foot print? Unlikely once you have committed to a chase ...

Everyone has their style when someone starts a fight ...

worded

“Man who fractured teenager's skull with hurley in 'revenge' attack has sentence increased“

Is Revenge premeditated? Again I think he probably acted on Adrenalin and was a spur of the moment thing. Revenge is not the appropriate word here

joeguevara

worded wrote: »

Googled for the judge name and read a few cases ....

He is human and has made a sentencing error IMHO

I was expecting to see an older more
Conservative judge

If he had made a sentencing error it would have been overturned in the court of appeal instead of two years being added.

One thing that I haven't seen raised (apologies if it has) is the guy was found guilty by a jury. The jury would have all evidence of self defense and any provocation but still came to the guilty conclusion. They would have been presented with way more evidence than what people are arguing about from a brief newspaper article. I find juries quite fair in cases like this and if there was enough mitigation they would bring a not-guilty verdict. These are regular people who would put themselves in the situation and wonder would they do the same. The fact they didn't speaks volumes.

joeguevara

worded wrote: »

“Man who fractured teenager's skull with hurley in 'revenge' attack has sentence increased“

Is Revenge premeditated? Again I think he probably acted on Adrenalin and was a spur of the moment thing. Revenge is not the appropriate word here

I agree that it was a provocative headline and smacks of clickbait. But it more than likely is because of the judge when sentencing differentiated the altercation that took place outside the house and the assault that took place a considerable distance away. Because of that differentiation it moved from a self defence to a revenge attack. Revenge does have connotations of happening a long time after an act where it is prepared for but it can be used when someone should be able to control their actions and regain self control. In this case I feel it is the wrong word to use but I suppose if it wasn't revenge then he wouldn't have been found guilty.

worded

joeguevara wrote: »

If he had made a sentencing error it would have been overturned in the court of appeal instead of two years being added.

One thing that I haven't seen raised (apologies if it has) is the guy was found guilty by a jury. The jury would have all evidence of self defense and any provocation but still came to the guilty conclusion. They would have been presented with way more evidence than what people are arguing about from a brief newspaper article. I find juries quite fair in cases like this and if there was enough mitigation they would bring a not-guilty verdict. These are regular people who would put themselves in the situation and wonder would they do the same. The fact they didn't speaks volumes.

Ok but we’re the jury guided and directed mainly by the fact it was off his property ? All danger had passed and he was meant to just go back indoor and in reality wait for the next attack to happen and sleep his Adrenalin rush off ?

joeguevara

worded wrote: »

The burglary was many years ago and thanks it’s in the past and mostly forgotten about. I have heard that any justice has to be delivered on the property and you can’t give chase. So to exaggerate, a home invasion takes place and home destroyed. Youth run past your gate while you give chase and you stop at your property foot print? Unlikely once you have committed to a chase ...

Everyone has their style when someone starts a fight ...

I don't know how to quote the points you have bolded in mine so I hope you don't mind me just quoting your response.

I don't agree with the premise that you can only chase a home invader to your property boundary. I believe you can give chase until you catch them within reason. If you lose sight and go looking for them and come across similar looking people then I think there is be an issue if you delivered a beating

With regards to how did he know it was the right guy but he did swing a plank that was because the report said he nominated him as the person who did the damage. If there was evidence that it was him then I don't think the word nominated would be used. He swung a plank aat him but if someone was coming at you with a Hurley then he had the right to defend himself.

I am glad that the burgalry is mostly forgotten about and I applaud you for trying to confront the people who did it.

worded

joeguevara wrote: »

I don't know how to quote the points you have bolded in mine so I hope you don't mind me just quoting your response.

I don't agree with the premise that you can only chase a home invader to your property boundary. I believe you can give chase until you catch them within reason. If you lose sight and go looking for them and come across similar looking people then I think there is be an issue if you delivered a beating

With regards to how did he know it was the right guy but he did swing a plank that was because the report said he nominated him as the person who did the damage. If there was evidence that it was him then I don't think the word nominated would be used. He swung a plank aat him but if someone was coming at you with a Hurley then he had the right to defend himself.

I am glad that the burgalry is mostly forgotten about and I applaud you for trying to confront the people who did it.

Ah OK there could be more to this than I realise ....