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

joeguevara

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

There was an anti-social incident. Nowhere did it say that all 20 youths (nowhere does it say scumbags) were involved. Nowhere did it say that people were harassed in their own home. Nowhere in the facts does it say that the person who got brain damage caused the damage that sparked the incident. Anti-social incident is a vague term but doesn't (based on the facts reported) indicate a gang of scumbags.

enricoh

Just for context - this guy ploughs into a car, legs it. Tries to sexually assault a female jogger, assaults a guy that comes to her aid. Runs off n assaults a female driver n hijacks her car with two kids inside and attacks them- gets the sum total of 20 months!
A very viilent and unusual case says the judge, will he do 12 months? https://m.herald.ie/news/hijacker-jailed-after-trying-to-bite-2-kids-and-attacking-jogger-38599847.html

Lefty Bicek

enricoh wrote: »

Just for context - this guy ploughs into a car, legs it. Tries to sexually assault a female jogger, assaults a guy that comes to her aid. Runs off n assaults a female driver n hijacks her car with two kids inside and attacks them- gets the sum total of 20 months!
A very viilent and unusual case says the judge, will he do 12 months? https://m.herald.ie/news/hijacker-jailed-after-trying-to-bite-2-kids-and-attacking-jogger-38599847.html

Shall we guess the name of the judge in this case... ?

Ms Jackson told Judge Nolan that one painkiller her client took that day was an over-the-counter Polish medication, while the second was a tablet prescribed by an Irish doctor.

hatrickpatrick

joeguevara wrote: »

There was an anti-social incident. Nowhere did it say that all 20 youths (nowhere does it say scumbags) were involved. Nowhere did it say that people were harassed in their own home. Nowhere in the facts does it say that the person who got brain damage caused the damage that sparked the incident. Anti-social incident is a vague term but doesn't (based on the facts reported) indicate a gang of scumbags.

"Anti-social incident" is a wishy-washy synonym for crime. Are you honestly disputing that those who were attacked were the criminals involved?

joeguevara

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"Anti-social incident" is a wishy-washy synonym for crime. Are you honestly disputing that those who were attacked were the criminals involved?

Yes. There is nothing in the reported facts to state that the person 'nominated' for the car damage was the 1 person out of 20 that was there. I raised the point that the word 'nominated' was strange in the news report.

Do you have knowledge of facts that don't appear to be reported?

CinemaGuy45

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He's a kid, dude. He was 16 years of age at the time, 21 now. His brain hasn't finished developing, and in certain respects it probably won't develop. He's suffered a brain injury because someone flew into a rage, without any defence of self-defence. If you think that's acceptable, fair enough; I think most reasonable people would be distraught to know they'd caused that kind of damage to someone. I'm sure both parties feel pretty distraught and regretful; nobody has won anything.

Kid is a total scumbag he was using a weapon and missed he got a bang of a Hurley and a fractured skull that sounds totally fair to me.

Brain damage so what he was never going to make any contribution to society he was a drain and remains a drain.

However a peaceful householder at his wits end thrown to the wolves that is the only thing I see wrong here.

CinemaGuy45

yesto24 wrote: »

He was 16. Old enough to know not to be damaging cars and old enough not to be swinging a plank at someone defending their property. I am not saying he deserved a cracked skull but he was old enough to be able to foresee that there may be consequences for actions.

I think he deserved it.

joeguevara

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Kid is a total scumbag he was using a weapon and missed he got a bang of a Hurley and a fractured skull that sounds totally fair to me.

Brain damage so what he was never going to make any contribution to society he was a drain and remains a drain.

However a peaceful householder at his wits end thrown to the wolves that is the only thing I see wrong here.

People are jumping to conclusions that what was happening was gang warfare. Curtis grabbed the hurley and exited the premises to drive away the boys, who had been playing music and making noise.

Peaceful householder???Judge O'Sullivan said there might have been an argument for the sentence to be wholly suspended had Curtis no prior conviction for a serious assault.

Mr McClelland has now completed his leaving certificate so your comment about being a drain and remains a drain has no merit

CinemaGuy45

biko wrote: »

Live by the car scratch, die by the hurley.

He tried to hit the guy with a plank of wood.
Also the useless little scumbag is not dead.

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

People are jumping to conclusions that what was happening was gang warfare. Curtis grabbed the hurley and exited the premises to drive away the boys, who had been playing music and making noise.

Peaceful householder???Judge O'Sullivan said there might have been an argument for the sentence to be wholly suspended had Curtis no prior conviction for a serious assault.

Mr McClelland has now completed his leaving certificate so your comment about being a drain and remains a drain has no merit

I don't care whether it was gang warfare or not.

I don't care whether Mr. Curtis had previous convictions or not.

I see him in the same light as I see Pádraig Nally, or Tony Martin.

A job worth doing, and a job well done.

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I don't care whether it was gang warfare or not.

I don't care whether Mr. Curtis had previous convictions or not.

I see him in the same light as I see Pádraig Nally, or Tony Martin.

A job worth doing, and a job well done.

But that makes no sense. You must care that the level of provocation is enough to justify an attack. If you don't then where do you draw the line on what you can do?

Nally was subjected to months of abuse and was in fear of his life before he took the matter into his own hands. If you see this person in the same light then you are making light of the Nally situation and allow anyone to attempt to kill a person without having a line that needs to be crossed.

How can you also not care that he had no previous convictions?

Argue all you want but at the end of the day the Court of Appeal extended the sentence.

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

But that makes no sense. You must care that the level of provocation is enough to justify an attack. If you don't then where do you draw the line on what you can do?

I only care that the little shít got what he deserved.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in academic discussions about 'reasonable force', or whatever.

Just enjoying the comeuppance-ness of it all.

Nally was subjected to months of abuse and was in fear of his life before he took the matter into his own hands. If you see this person in the same light then you are making light of the Nally situation and allow anyone to attempt to kill a person without having a line that needs to be crossed.

Again, you are straining at the leash to appear clever about all this. My point in making the comparison is simply that the victims of Nally, Martin, and Curtis all got what was coming to them. Their punk hubris bit them on the hole.

It is worth reminding ourselves too that the three men in question all did/are doing time. So the whole panic about vigilantism leading to a breakdown in the social order is crap. Firstly, the social order is broken anyway; and secondly, the state does not want to punish vigilantism because it sometimes goes too far, but rather because the state wants for itself the monopoly on force.

All fine and well until they structurally fail to protect people and their property. Which they are doing.

How can you also not care that he had no previous convictions?

Because it's irrelevant to my concerns.

Argue all you want but at the end of the day the Court of Appeal extended the sentence.

I don't care. I haven't argued about that.

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I only care that the little shít got what he deserve.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in academic discussions about 'reasonable force', or whatever.

Just enjoying the comeuppance-ness of it all.



Again, you are straining at the leash to appear clever about all this. My point in making the comparison is simply that the victims of Nally, Martin, and Curtis all got what was coming to them. Their punk hubris bit them on the hole.

It is worth reminding ourselves too that the three men in question all did/are doing time. So the whole panic about vigilantism leading to a breakdown in the social order is crap. Firstly, the social order is broken anyway; and secondly, the state does not want to punish vigilantism because it sometimes goes too far, but rather because the state wants for itself the monopoly on force.

All fine and well until they structurally fail to protect people and their property. Which they are doing.



Because it's irrelevant to my concerns.



I don't care. I haven't argued about that.

But my point is how do you know he got what he deserved. Is there any facts to state that he was the person who caused the damage and was not just nominated. It really could have been a case of mistaken identity and wrong place wrong time.

I am not straining at the leash to 'appear clever'. My point is the victim of Nally, subjected him to months of abuse and put him in fear of his life. He got what was coming to him because at the end of the day the punishment fit the crime. But in this instance the punishment did not fit the crime. By your reasoning, do a bit of loitering and/or break a window means you deserve to get a hurley to the head.

Previous convictions are irrelevant to your concerns means you are refusing to take into account that someone who has a history of violent behaviour and has been imprisoned for his short fuse may not have the emotional tools to determine whether he can take the law into his own hands in a case like this.

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

But my point is how do you know he got what he deserved. Is there any facts to state that he was the person who caused the damage and was not just nominated. It really could have been a case of mistaken identity and wrong place wrong time.

It was definitely 'wrong place, wrong time'. I don't know, any more than you know that it was the damage to the car that motivated Mr. Curtis to go the extra mile. It may have been the sight of a weapon ( the plank ). Are we disputing the identity of that individual ?

I am not straining at the leash to 'appear clever'. My point is the victim of Nally, subjected him to months of abuse and put him in fear of his life. He got what was coming to him because at the end of the day the punishment fit the crime.

Ah, so now you are the arbiter of when people get what they deserve. You set the boundaries. Tell us what they are ?

But in this instance the punishment did not fit the crime. By your reasoning, do a bit of loitering and/or break a window means you deserve to get a hurley to the head.

As I said, you do not know that the motivation you attribute is the correct one.

You do not know that it could be the wielding of a weapon, or that it could be frustration that his mother's house was the target of dozens of petty incidents that can really accumulate and affect a person - maybe especially an older person - and their quality of life is destroyed.

You simply do not know, yet you persist with the 'car damage' angle.

Previous convictions are irrelevant to your concerns means you are refusing to take into account that someone who has a history of violent behaviour and has been imprisoned for his short fuse may not have the emotional tools to determine whether he can take the law into his own hands in a case like this.

Well, we know he 'can't' take the law into his own hands since he's banged up.

Yet we also know that he 'can' take the law into is own hands, since one plank-wielding plank is out of commission.

I'll take it.

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It was definitely 'wrong place, wrong time'. I don't know, any more than you know that it was the damage to the car that motivated Mr. Curtis to go the extra mile. It may have been the sight of a weapon ( the plank ). Are we disputing the identity of that individual ?



Ah, so now you are the arbiter of when people get what they deserve. You set the boundaries. Tell us what they are ?



As I said, you do not know that the motivation you attribute is the correct one.

You do not know that it could be the wielding of a weapon, or that it could be frustration that his mother's house was the target of dozens of petty incidents that can really accumulate and affect a person - maybe especially an older person - and their quality of life is destroyed.

You simply do not know, yet you persist with the 'car damage' angle.



Well, we know he 'can't' take the law into his own hands since he's banged up.

Yet we also know that he 'can' take the law into is own hands, since one plank-wielding plank is out of commission.

I'll take it.

That is a well reasoned post.

With regard to the plank, it is highly possible that it was picked up as someone in a rage came towards him with a hurley. If he didnt damage the car, he was an innocent person who is entitled to defend himself.

There is no evidence that his mother's house was the target of of dozens of petty incidents that can really accumulate and affect a person. You raised this and not me. How is acceptable for you to determine possibilities but I seem to not be given the same latitude.

If a person is in fear for his life then they are entitled to use whatever reasonable means are afforded to them to displace that fear. That is in essence why Nally was found not guilty. He only was imprisoned in the first trial because the judge erred in his direction and gave the jury no option but to find guilty.

Your last line, while an amusing play on words, is the root of what my position is. We simply do not know that the person out of commission deserved to be.

8-10

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Kid is a total scumbag he was using a weapon and missed he got a bang of a Hurley and a fractured skull that sounds totally fair to me.

Surely death would have been fair by that logic? Or where do you draw the line, how much damage was it fair to cause? Could he have killed him fairly?

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

That is a well reasoned post.

With regard to the plank, it is highly possible that it was picked up as someone in a rage came towards him with a hurley.

Possible. A lot of people who are horrified by the outcome would suggest he would have been better off running, rather than shaping.

The possibility you suggest here is one of a number, though this is the one suits your general need to 'convict'. I don't think that is coincidental.

If he didnt damage the car, he was an innocent person who is entitled to defend himself.

If. Maybe.

Guilty by association, definitely.

There is no evidence that his mother's house was the target of of dozens of petty incidents that can really accumulate and affect a person. You raised this and not me. How is acceptable for you to determine possibilities but I seem to not be given the same latitude.

I am offerering possibilities, not building a case out of one to the exclusion of many others.

If a person is in fear for his life then they are entitled to use whatever reasonable means are afforded to them to displace that fear. That is in essence why Nally was found not guilty. He only was imprisoned in the first trial because the judge erred in his direction and gave the jury no option but to find guilty.

Your last line, while an amusing play on words, is the root of what my position is. We simply do not know that the person out of commission deserved to be.

Ergo, we should not dismiss out of hand that he got what he deserved, even by your own standards. Have you allowed that ?

I, on the other hand, am using different criteria and hunches.

We may as well be speaking different languages, in a way.

CinemaGuy45

8-10 wrote: »

Surely death would have been fair by that logic? Or where do you draw the line, how much damage was it fair to cause? Could he have killed him fairly?

Where do I draw the line? to be honest I don't if he died I would laugh in the face of his grieving parents and let all the dogs use his grave as a toilet.

He had the weapon he was part of the gang causing the trouble he tried to use the weapon on the man visiting his elderly mother.

Simple answer to you silly post if scum don't want their brains bashed in don't go around terrorising whole communities it is not rocket science FFs.

Scum and their families and those who defend them have some neck crying about the rules and drawing the line.:rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

joeguevara wrote: »

Yes. There is nothing in the reported facts to state that the person 'nominated' for the car damage was the 1 person out of 20 that was there. I raised the point that the word 'nominated' was strange in the news report.

Do you have knowledge of facts that don't appear to be reported?

Are you familiar with the concept of conspiracy, or shared intention? You don't have to have committed an overt act to be considered a co-conspirator to an act of crime. If you were surrounded by a gang of criminals and one of them punched you and stole your wallet, are you telling me you wouldn't regard all 20 of them as scumbags in equal measure, even if reserving more personal hatred for the person who actually did the punching and stealing?

What you're failing to take into account in your arguments is the cultural backdrop to all of this. Ireland has a problem with impunity at all levels of society and one of those very visible and widely maligned areas is the area of violence, harassment and vandalism committed by groups of young scumbags. It's in that context that this guy is getting support, because most of us here would have good reason, based on regular news reporting, to bet every cent we have on the thugs involved receiving the most minor slap on the wrist if their crimes ever actually made it to court.

Vigilantism is only cheered in a scenario in which the state is perceived as having abdicated its responsibility to administer justice formally. Why would anyone cheer it otherwise?

8-10

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Scum and their families and those who defend them have some neck crying about the rules and drawing the line.:rolleyes:

You’re defending the criminal here

hatrickpatrick

8-10 wrote: »

You’re defending the criminal here

Question: What do you think should be done with thugs who harass people in groups and commit acts of petty and violent crime for no reason other than their twisted minds finding it mildly amusing? Are you personally happy with the status quo, which is "nothing"? If not, what should change?

StinkyMunkey

Guy deserved no more than a suspended sentence.

Scrot instigated the confrontation and got his just deserts.

The only thing upsetting me is the poor guy going to prison.

CinemaGuy45

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Guy deserved no more than a suspended sentence.

Scrot instigated the confrontation and got his just deserts.

The only thing upsetting me is the poor guy going to prison.

NewbridgeIR

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Vigilantism is only cheered in a scenario in which the state is perceived as having abdicated its responsibility to administer justice formally. Why would anyone cheer it otherwise?

Given that nobody has been charged with
1. Attempting to attack the defendant with the plank
2. Damaging the car

Then his actions can been seen as justified. On the basis that the state had no interest in administering justice.

Punishing the person who retaliates while letting the instigator off has been going on for years - in sport, in school etc. It's very unfair.

CinemaGuy45

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Given that nobody has been charged with
1. Attempting to attack the defendant with the plank
2. Damaging the car

Then his actions can been seen as justified. On the basis that the state had no interest in administering justice.

Punishing the person who retaliates while letting the instigator off has been going on for years - in sport, in school etc. It's very unfair.

The little scum can not spleeek wriet nowww ahh.

hatrickpatrick

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Given that nobody has been charged with
1. Attempting to attack the defendant with the plank
2. Damaging the car

Then his actions can been seen as justified. On the basis that the state had no interest in administering justice.

Punishing the person who retaliates while letting the instigator off has been going on for years - in sport, in school etc. It's very unfair.

100% this. If any son or daughter of mine ever gets in trouble in school for standing up to a bully and giving them a taste of their own medicine, they’ll be getting a night out at the cinema or something from me to compensate. It’s absolutely ridiculous how retaliation is seen as equal to or even worse than the unprovoked initial crime in terms of how “wrong” it is.

CinemaGuy45

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100% this. If any son or daughter of mine ever gets in trouble in school for standing up to a bully and giving them a taste of their own medicine, they’ll be getting a night out at the cinema or something from me to compensate. It’s absolutely ridiculous how retaliation is seen as equal to or even worse than the unprovoked initial crime in terms of how “wrong” it is.

I would pay to see the little scrote get his skull cracked and laugh in the faces of his upset parents.

If he had died I would have laughed.

I have seen what it is like to live with scum like that destroying an area.

Four years for that poor man makes me very angry.

Useless corrupt legal system and corrupt Garda.

MayoSalmon

I have not one drop of sympathy for the little scrote

joeguevara

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Guy deserved no more than a suspended sentence.

Scrot instigated the confrontation and got his just deserts.

The only thing upsetting me is the poor guy going to prison.

Judge explicitly said that if it wasn't for his previous Convictions he would have a full suspended sentence. You have admiration for someone that has a character you abhor.

Only difference is that you have now evidence that the 16 year old did anything wrong but the guy you feel sorry for is guilty of two separate acts of grevious harm

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Possible. A lot of people who are horrified by the outcome would suggest he would have been better off running, rather than shaping.

The possibility you suggest here is one of a number, though this is the one suits your general need to 'convict'. I don't think that is coincidental.



If. Maybe.

Guilty by association, definitely.



I am offerering possibilities, not building a case out of one to the exclusion of many others.



Ergo, we should not dismiss out of hand that he got what he deserved, even by your own standards. Have you allowed that ?

I, on the other hand, am using different criteria and hunches.

We may as well be speaking different languages, in a way.

Now this post makes a lot of sense. It takes the reported facts and the argument is justified. It also doesn't attack any poster.

I believe a man's home is his castle. I believe he has the rightto protect it.

What my point all along was that people were too quick to applaud a child receiving a brain injury and opine that he was dirt.