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

joeguevara

worded wrote: »

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 ?

Ever since the Nally conviction was overturned judges have been very careful about giving directions which may away the jury. Remember the jury found Nally not guilty of shooting frog ward while he limped away from a beating. If the judge had given an incorrect direction or tried to sway the jury into disregarding the self defense argument it would have been overturned by the court of appeal.

scamalert

joeguevara wrote: »

He swung a plank aat him but if someone was coming at you with a Hurley then he had the right to defend himself.

so one goes fcks over persons car takes a wrench and waits until owner comes out to smack them in the head if they have anything on them must been some barrister.

joeguevara

scamalert wrote: »

so one goes fcks over persons car takes a wrench and waits until owner comes out to smack them in the head if they have anything on them must been some barrister.

You have quoted me out of context. That was in direct response to my point that there is no evidence (from the facts reported that Curtis was the person who damaged the car. The report used the word nominated him as the person. Again why the need to make a personal attack on me?

Boggles

worded wrote: »

My house was burgled as a home alone 16 year old by four men older than me. ..... 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 !

Unless you were been trained by Mr. Miyagi and you were armed with a gun I'd safely say you were the lucky one.

Seasoned burglars will always run if they can it's not because they were afraid your 16 year old self.

decky1

joeguevara wrote: »

Was there no crimes committed when children were beaten with sticks? Does that extend also to giving teachers the power to use the leather like was prevalent in Christian Brothers schools?

Now don't take this in any way that I believe that youth offenders should be treated lightly and should pay for their crimes with hugs. But when people say bring back the birch as if it is the answer then it doesn't allow for a proper discussion. It never works when you allow people beat others with weapons.

Worked for lone enough on the Isle of Man, got some of it from the so called Christian Brothers, did'nt do us any harm , we knew when to behave at the thought of the 'Black Jack'

joeguevara

decky1 wrote: »

Worked for lone enough on the Isle of Man, got some of it from the so called Christian Brothers, did'nt do us any harm , we knew when to behave at the thought of the 'Black Jack'

If people knew how to behave because of fear of the birch why was there 100,000 recorded indictable offences in Ireland in 1980. The population was circa 3.3 million.

LoughNeagh2017

We don't have many hurls in county Derry though there are people with the surname Hurl if that counts

Claw Hammer

joeguevara wrote: »

If people knew how to behave because of fear of the birch why was there 100,000 recorded indictable offences in Ireland in 1980. The population was circa 3.3 million.

There as no birching in Ireland in 1980.

8-10

If somebody needs threat of violence in order to behave there's a deeper problem going on. It's not a solution, it's a sign there's a problem

Claw Hammer

Castlekeeper wrote: »

Mr. Curtis erred in not having a sliothar I his hand and throwing it in the air as he pulled, once the ball was there it was a yellow at worst.
His defence erred in not bringing up the possibility that his opponent might have been falling or maybe dipped into the challenge, it may have been an innocent mid height challenge that just went wrong.
They all have plenty of time for reflection now anyway.

The defence can't just float possibilities. they are stuck with their clients description of what happened.

joeguevara

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There as no birching in Ireland in 1980.

There was definitely caning and widespread use of the leather strap in 1980. It was officially banned in 1982 but wasn't made a criminal offence until the 90s.

Point being - Widespread physical punishment in schools did not in any way control criminal behaviour. But you often see it being said that kids who were subjected to it were too scared to break the law.

Sittingpretty

joeguevara wrote: »

There was definitely caning and widespread use of the leather strap in 1980. It was officially banned in 1982 but wasn't made a criminal offence until the 90s.

Point being - Widespread physical punishment in schools did not in any way control criminal behaviour. But you often see it being said that kids who were subjected to it were too scared to break the law.

What age are you? I was at school with the nastiest nuns you could possibly imagine it 1980 and there was none of what you describe.

Yes officially banned in 82 but widespread out of practice long before that.

Chris_Heilong

People in some communities are under fear from gangs, Police cant do anything. I think self defence is important and these "children" would be less likely to be pests if a community supported one another and faced them together. If someone is attacking you then I think you have to do what ever it takes to put them down, dont use excessive force just enough to stop them.

Claw Hammer

joeguevara wrote: »

There was definitely caning and widespread use of the leather strap in 1980. It was officially banned in 1982 but wasn't made a criminal offence until the 90s.

Point being - Widespread physical punishment in schools did not in any way control criminal behaviour. But you often see it being said that kids who were subjected to it were too scared to break the law.

How many children of school age committed indictable offences in 1980? the big mistake was closing the industrial schools. When they were there, any you child who was not being looked after properly by the parents would be sent there and taught manners. Bicycles could be left unlocked in O Connell st in Dublin and would not be stolen at one time. Old people were not terrified in their houses and there was not need for anyone to take measures of their own to stop ant-social behaviour.

bodhrandude

I've a feeling he may of singled out the leader or the actual guy who done the damage to his car, if you attack the leader of a gang the rest will scatter like fleas from a sh1t, maybe he thought in the head that to whack the maddest toughest guy would deter the rest from coming back again.

Eric Cartman

bodhrandude wrote: »

I've a feeling he may of singled out the leader or the actual guy who done the damage to his car, if you attack the leader of a gang the rest will scatter like fleas from a sh1t, maybe he thought in the head that to whack the maddest toughest guy would deter the rest from coming back again.

the leader would also be the one to stay and do the plank swinging as indicated, also suggests how he ran after the guy without encountering any of the minions first.

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the leader would also be the one to stay and do the plank swinging as indicated, also suggests how he ran after the guy without encountering any of the minions first.

Or he wasn't the one who damaged the car and he was just trying to protect himself form this extreme violent scumbag.

8-10

bodhrandude wrote: »

I've a feeling he may of singled out the leader or the actual guy who done the damage to his car, if you attack the leader of a gang the rest will scatter like fleas from a sh1t, maybe he thought in the head that to whack the maddest toughest guy would deter the rest from coming back again.

The others pointed out the kid that he hit, he didn't choose him himself. You think they pointed out their leader?

Also, for those defending this man's actions, do you believe that the 19 kids he didn't hit have now been scared straight and won't look to commit crimes like this ever again?

spurious

It's ****ty parenting.

Do not take or damage other people's property.
Do not shout abuse at strangers in the street.
Do not shout in the street generally, in a way that might disturb other people going about their business.
Find something productive to do if bored. Maybe even get a job?
Take your hands out of the front of your trousers.

They grow up watching their fine parents unable to follow any of the above basic rules. Monkey see, monkey do.

Tasfasdf

Boggles wrote: »

Or he wasn't the one who damaged the car and he was just trying to protect himself form this extreme violent scumbag.

There's always one:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

El_Bee

It's a case of different worlds, the Judges in this country in their policed leafy neighbourhoods can't in a million years understand the level of thuggery and overall badness you see in these scummy teens, bad is good, bad is fun, and the gang backs you up and hops on whoever tries to stop you. Gardai are powerless, if they actually show up in time (response times are garbage for anti-social behavior because resources are diverted into traffic and drugs) and take one of them in, they are 99% of the time released without charge. If they actually do go before a judge, it's the usual "he's from a disadvantaged area", "he's trying to get things back on track", "he has a difficult home life", etc. etc. etc. and they walk out of court free. You think anyone WANTS to take the law into their own hands? To have to go out and confront a huge gang of scumbags? The law has failed communities all over the country, I'm not surprised it's happened, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Claw Hammer

Boggles wrote: »

Or he wasn't the one who damaged the car and he was just trying to protect himself form this extreme violent scumbag.

There was a gang of them acting together. It does't matter which one of them actually damaged the car, they were involved in a joint enterprise and all all equally guilty. His mistake was to use a hurl. if it was a cricket bat he would have been let off.

8-10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There was a gang of them acting together. It does't matter which one of them actually damaged the car, they were involved in a joint enterprise and all all equally guilty. His mistake was to use a hurl. if it was a cricket bat he would have been let off.

Nonsense. He'll do his time for his actions which he would have done regardless of it being a bat or a hurley.

Beeping Kitchen Appliances

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There was a gang of them acting together. It does't matter which one of them actually damaged the car, they were involved in a joint enterprise and all all equally guilty. His mistake was to use a hurl. if it was a cricket bat he would have been let off.

A 'Polo Hammer' would similarly have been of correct social standing for use.

Beeping Kitchen Appliances

8-10 wrote: »

Nonsense. He'll do his time for his actions which he would have done regardless of it being a bat or a hurley.

That's for a Judge and Jury to decide.

8-10

Beeping Kitchen Appliances wrote: »

That's for a Judge and Jury to decide.

Which they did

Claw Hammer

8-10 wrote: »

Which they did

There was no cricket bat used so they only decided the situation with a hurley.

8-10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There was no cricket bat used so they only decided the situation with a hurley.

Yes but I don't see anything to suggest that their decision relied on the weapon, rather on whether it was an act of revenge which could be considered premeditated.

What makes you suggest that a bat would be any different? I think a bit of common sense comes into play here.

Why would a bat be considered less likely to convict than a hurley?

I'm assuming that the injury would be the same regardless. If you're trying to suggest that a bat would result in less of an injury then that's a completely different argument

tallaghtfornia

He said the proper approach would have been to speak to the boys in a peaceful manner, and if that didn’t work, to call the gardaí.

Kids have no fear of the law or Adults now.

I had an issue with a few kids no more than 14 going around on a scrambler and I told them I would ring the Guards they laughed at me and said 'sure what will they do' - I rang the Guards and they said it would be an hour before they could send someone up so I suppose the kids have a point!

Boggles

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There was a gang of them acting together. It does't matter which one of them actually damaged the car, they were involved in a joint enterprise and all all equally guilty.

Absolute nonsense.