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

Claw Hammer

Boggles wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

How so?

8-10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

How so?

Because you haven't explained how a bat instead of a hurley would have swayed the jury?

Ronaldinho

Should have paid the local fence maintenance company. Wouldn't have had any trouble to begin with.

MondayBlues

I used to work in a shop at age 18 in a city on my own during college and had numerous little scumbags in the shop annoying me, robbing, trying to get behind the counter, trying to get free fags, grabbing for lotto tickets etc. When I called the Gaurds they did a quick search and just kicked the lads out and that was the end of it.

Anyway one day I went out for lunch and got jumped by four of the little scumbags been belted by a bicycle pump and kicks and punches, they were around 16. No serious harm done, got up and went back to work as was physically okay but emotionally all over the place from it. I got two or three good smacks in on the little *****.

Following day they came back into the shop hassling me again saying next time I won’t be able to walk and that their family’s are after me.

Let’s just say I carried a tyre iron with me on lunch every day since then and wouldn’t have hesitated belting them over the head with it.

There is only so much you can take and the cops are next to useless dealing with these little scumbags of there under 18.

FishOnABike

8-10 wrote: »

Because you haven't explained how a bat instead of a hurley would have swayed the jury?

Obviously a person holding a cricket bat in their hand is from a better background than some savage swinging a hurley. It just wouldn't be cricket to find a gentleman guilty! (Removes monocle in horror at the idea).

Eric Cartman

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.

Why did he swing at him first with a plank of wood that he had on him

8-10

FishOnABike wrote: »

Obviously a person holding a cricket bat in their hand is from a better background than some savage swinging a hurley. It just wouldn't be cricket to find a gentleman guilty! (Removes monocle in horror at the idea).

I'd be afraid that chap actually believes something like that as I can't see a legitimate reason for it to be the case

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why did he swing at him first with a plank of wood that he had on him

How do you know he had it on him?

8-10

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why did he swing at him first with a plank of wood that he had on him

Because he's a punk kid up to no good feeling emboldened by his mates being around him

Doesn't really matter though, he didn't deserve brain damage

Lefty Bicek

8-10 wrote: »

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?

Possibly not at his mother's house anyway.

So he's done his bit, and fair play to him.

joeguevara

El_Bee wrote: »

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.

Juries find people guilty (or not) of an indictable offence after a trial where all evidence is presented. Also any defence, alibis, reasons, mitigations etc are presented.

After a conviction a judge will sentence. In this case if there was any issue of provocation, being terrorised or similar the jury wouldn't convict. To Blake judges living in leafy suburbs and not being in touch with the common man is a cop out

We have countless cases (Nally being most famous) of juries siding with the person who flipped because of scum. When they convict we have to believe that the guy wasn't in the right.

8-10

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Possibly not at his mother's house anyway.

So he's done his bit, and fair play to him.

Disgraceful opinion.

'possibly not' doesn't sound worth it. Certainly not worth it if you think they'll just do it somewhere else

This wasn't justified

Lefty Bicek

8-10 wrote: »

Disgraceful opinion.

'possibly not' doesn't sound worth it. Certainly not worth it if you think they'll just don't it somewhere else

This wasn't justified

8-10

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

You missed my edit. Predictive text issue on the phone, I apologise if it wasn't clear what I meant

Lefty Bicek

8-10 wrote: »

You missed my edit. Predictive text issue on the phone, I apologise if it wasn't clear what I meant

It was perfectly clear what you meant, and perfectly predictable that you'd blame predictive text. They all say that, nowadays.

Anyway, that's only all a bit of banter.

The serious point is that I care not an iota about your judgement of my opinion as 'disgraceful'.

It's just another feeble swipe, from the brigade of no real solutions and no real constitutions either.

Again, I'm not suggesting Mr Curtis get off scot-free, but I am delighted the little dirtbox and his tribe will be reminded forever that not everyone will take their sh1t.

8-10

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Again, I'm not suggesting Mr Curtis get off scot-free, but I am delighted the little dirtbox and his tribe will be reminded forever that not everyone will take their sh1t.

And I think your naïve in thinking 'his tribe' are now rehabilitated and aren't out doing exactly the same thing to someone else tonight

Lefty Bicek

8-10 wrote: »

And I think your naïve in thinking 'his tribe' are now rehabilitated and aren't out doing exactly the same thing to someone else tonight

I meant his family, not his fellow scrotes.

ps You and that pesky old predictive text, eh ?

8-10

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I meant his family, not his fellow scrotes.

ps You and that pesky old predictive text, eh ?

No my grammar just isn't as good as yours.

Can we not have the discussion regardless?

joeguevara

Can I ask an honest question? And before anyone attacks my syntax, spelling or grammar, I will acknowledge I'm watching the Irish match and have had a few pints.

Are people basing their vitriol solely on the newspaper report? Words like tribe, scum, terrorise, gang etc.

Nowhere does it state anything like that. I am the first to stand up for the underdog but I also don't jump in without facts.

MondayBlues

joeguevara wrote: »

Can I ask an honest question? And before anyone attacks my syntax, spelling or grammar, I will acknowledge I'm watching the Irish match and have had a few pints.

Are people basing their vitriol solely on the newspaper report? Words like tribe, scum, terrorise, gang etc.

Nowhere does it state anything like that. I am the first to stand up for the underdog but I also don't jump in without facts.

You’ve obviously never dealt with scumbags and harassment and how bad it is with the cops doing absolutely nothing about it. There a dangerous breed who can basically do what they want as under age and out legal system will just batter an eyelid if they do ever get brought to court

joeguevara

MondayBlues wrote: »

You’ve obviously never dealt with scumbags and harassment and how bad it is with the cops doing absolutely nothing about it. There a dangerous breed who can basically do what they want as under age and out legal system will just batter an eyelid if they do ever get brought to court

Did you read my question? Where does it say anything like you quoted?

MondayBlues

joeguevara wrote: »

Did you read my question? Where does it say anything like you quoted?

20 youths outside house, damage owners car, swing a plank at the owner.

Do the Maths and stop been so naive. You mentioned you stand up for the under dog? Go to Tallaght and see if there “Underdogs”

pinkyeye

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

Yeah, you know what sickens me most about these bleeding videos?

Those taking the videos thinking their heroes. Go out and help the man and stop making a fcuking video. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

joeguevara

MondayBlues wrote: »

20 youths outside house, damage owners car, swing a plank at the owner.

Do the Maths and stop been so naive. You mentioned you stand up for the under dog? Go to Tallaght and see if there “Underdogs”

In the situation you profess the home owner is the underdog so I would stand up for him.

I live on a street where there would regularly be kids and teenagers hanging out. They are sometimes loud and sometimes it annoys me. Often I open my door and give a yell

Also cars get damaged for many reasons. Usually by a football or accident

I will be on the side of someone who is being bullied. But I won't simply decide to agree with a kid getting a brain injury because of a bogus conclusion from no facts

scamalert

joeguevara wrote: »

In the situation you profess the home owner is the underdog so I would stand up for him.

I live on a street where there would regularly be kids and teenagers hanging out. They are sometimes loud and sometimes it annoys me. Often I open my door and give a yell

Also cars get damaged for many reasons. Usually by a football or accident

I will be on the side of someone who is being bullied. But I won't simply decide to agree with a kid getting a brain injury because of a bogus conclusion from no facts

i dont get it you dont agree with sentence being to lean or to harsh ? surely before he was sentenced they had to base it on actual facts, not making a number out ? then again given legal system maybe it was just a number, how otherwise people would end up with 50-100 suspended convictions, being always let off. And no its nothing personal me asking you, just want input.
as i can see that he was wrong in such damage, but should he done nothing and sucked it up doesn't even sound remotely close to any justice either, which is considered norm.

joeguevara

scamalert wrote: »

i dont get it you dont agree with sentence being to lean or to harsh ? surely before he was sentenced they had to base it on actual facts, not making a number out ? then again given legal system maybe it was just a number, how otherwise people would end up with 50-100 suspended convictions, being always let off. And no its nothing personal me asking you, just want input.
as i can see that he was wrong in such damage, but should he done nothing and sucked it up doesn't even sound remotely close to any justice either, which is considered norm.

I don't agree with people calling people scum with no facts. I don't agree with people jumping to conclusions and saying a person deserves a medal for caving a kid's skull in when we don't know did he even do anything

Nothing in the reported facts points to anything that people are glad that a kid has brain damage for.

El_Bee

joeguevara wrote: »

Juries find people guilty (or not) of an indictable offence after a trial where all evidence is presented. Also any defence, alibis, reasons, mitigations etc are presented.

Juries are human and can make errors

After a conviction a judge will sentence. In this case if there was any issue of provocation, being terrorised or similar the jury wouldn't convict. To Blake judges living in leafy suburbs and not being in touch with the common man is a cop out

Judges live in a different reality to people living in areas with severe anti-social behavior, they have no conception of it's effects on the mental state of it's victims.

We have countless cases (Nally being most famous) of juries siding with the person who flipped because of scum. When they convict we have to believe that the guy wasn't in the right.

"we have to believe"?? Jesus I hope no one close to you ever gets wrongly convicted.

8-10

El_Bee wrote: »

Juries are human and can make errors

You think.he didn't hit him then?

hatrickpatrick

Did anyone read this story earlier?

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/gardai-investigating-after-homophobic-thugs-17093297

These are the kind of absolute scumbags we're talking about. The guy said in his own Facebook post about the incident that the Gardaí were sympathetic and apologetic that there's basically nothing they can do because those involved in the attack are underage.

That's the current paradigm we're living in, and it's in that context that I applaud hurl-wielder in this case. Scumbags should be locked up for life, but in a society which refuses to do that vigilantism seems to be the only solution.

hatrickpatrick

joeguevara wrote: »

I don't agree with people calling people scum with no facts. I don't agree with people jumping to conclusions and saying a person deserves a medal for caving a kid's skull in when we don't know did he even do anything

Nothing in the reported facts points to anything that people are glad that a kid has brain damage for.

The reported facts are that this was a gang of scumbags harassing people in their own home and damaging their property. Are you disputing that?