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

joeguevara

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

Nothing in your post is incorrect. However you have constructed a situation that doesn't fit squarely in the reported case. Firstly it is not the case of 20 people surrounding someone and punching them and or stealing a wallet. It is actually someone storming out with a weapon and confronting someone for maybe doing something

The crime of conspiracy is when there is a group who intend to commit an act. We don't have that here other than an anti social event occurring which could simply be loud music.

My whole point of debating on this thread is that a 16 year old is painted as a thug or a scumbag with no evidence backing up that. Also the assailant has previous convictions for serious assault with a knife which people disregard.

I dislike false accusations and I hate bullies. I will stand up for any person who protects themselves and family when required. But I don't agree that someone can get a life changing injury from an assault where they did (based on what we know) very little

Boggles

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

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.

You would pay to see a 16 year old boy murdered?

That's perfectly normal.

Lefty Bicek

Boggles wrote: »

You would pay to see a 16 year old boy murdered?

That's perfectly normal.

No, he said he would pay to see the skull cracking, and laugh at a fatality.

He didn't say he would pay for the fatality.

Do you see what you did there ? You're so used to tactical distortion of people's posts, you do it automatically, even for the simplest of statements.

The boards of the world are crawling with such disingenuity. Loathsome, achieving nothing.

Boggles

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

He didn't say he would pay for the fatality.

Really, must have left out the part where he would ask for a refund if it turned into murder.

Probably too busy laughing at the parents of the murdered child I suppose.

Like I said perfectly normal behavior.

Keep trucking, super work.

#edgelords

Claw Hammer

joeguevara wrote: »

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

Of course the 16 year old did something wrong. He was involved in criminal damage,watching and besetting, harassment and assault. He got away lighly with tap on the skull.

8-10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Of course the 16 year old did something wrong. He was involved in criminal damage,watching and besetting, harassment and assault. He got away lighly with tap on the skull.

So why wasn't yer man congratulated?

A: because you can't go around smashing skulls in. It's not a measured response.

Claw Hammer

8-10 wrote: »

So why wasn't yer man congratulated?

A: because you can't go around smashing skulls in. It's not a measured response.

Yer man was congratulated, by right thinking people. people o this thread have congratulated him. The 16 year old did penty wrong. Just because someone was convicted of chastising him doesn't mean he did nothing wrong in the first place.
If he hadn't done what he did, his head would be in a better place now.

Lefty Bicek

Boggles wrote: »

Really, must have left out the part where he would ask for a refund if it turned into murder.

As well as distortion of what other people actually say, you also go in for total fabrication.

Making a fool of yourself, child.

8-10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Yer man was congratulated, by right thinking people. people o this thread have congratulated him. The 16 year old did penty wrong. Just because someone was convicted of chastising him doesn't mean he did nothing wrong in the first place.
If he hadn't done what he did, his head would be in a better place now.

Don’t think anybody’s here saying the kid didn’t do anything wrong

I’m sure yer man’s over the moon with the congratulations he’s gotten from this thread. Fair play to him, he can probably tot up the thanks that posts praising him got and feel delighted with himself

Boggles

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

As well as distortion of what other people actually say, you also go in for total fabrication.

Making a fool of yourself, child.

Yeah, like I said perfectly normal behavior.

Claw Hammer

8-10 wrote: »

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

What has that got to do with common design?

Claw Hammer

8-10 wrote: »

Don’t think anybody’s here saying the kid didn’t do anything wrong

joeguevara did at post #420. Obviously you are not reading the thread, just interjecting.

8-10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

joeguevara did at post #420. Obviously you are not reading the thread, just interjecting.

Not exactly, he was commenting on the evidence. Common sense though suggests he was in the wrong so I disagree with that poster if he meant by this that he definitely didn't do anything wrong. That's not my opinion.

joeguevara wrote: »

Only difference is that you have now evidence that the 16 year old did anything wrong

8-10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What has that got to do with common design?

You are the one who said:

Claw Hammer wrote: »

if it was a cricket bat he would have been let off.

And I'm yet to hear a genuine reason why you believe that? Why would a bat have resulted in being let off, but a hurley results in conviction?

What is the difference in your view that leads you to this conclusion?

meathstevie

major bill wrote: »

Sounds like they have never set foot in crumlin! Gang of young lads acting the bollox , go out and talking woulda given him a hiding!

Or worse...

joeguevara

8-10 wrote: »

Not exactly, he was commenting on the evidence. Common sense though suggests he was in the wrong so I disagree with that poster if he meant by this that he definitely didn't do anything wrong. That's not my opinion.

My comment in #420 was that there was no evidence reported that he damaged the car which started the train of events. And without that evidence, I feel that people are too quick to label him a scumbag and deserving of his fate.

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

My comment in #420 was that there was no evidence reported that he damaged the car which started the train of events. And without that evidence, I feel that people are too quick to label him a scumbag and deserving of his fate.

No evidence for that either.

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

No evidence for that either.

It was reported that the reason that Mr. Curtis exited his house brandishing a hurley was that he witnessed his car being damaged. He then nominated the 16 year old as said person who committed damage. What do you mean that there is no evidence for that either?

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

It was reported that the reason that Mr. Curtis exited his house brandishing a hurley was that he witnessed his car being damaged. He then nominated the 16 year old as said person who committed damage. What do you mean that there is no evidence for that either?

What I mean is that there is no evidence that the damage to the car started the chain if events.

It might have been the catalyst for what happened on the day, but that is a separate concept.

For all we know, damage to the car is just as likely to have been 'the last straw', as to have been 'the first link in the chain'.

But I rely more on common sense and knowledge of how these lowlifes operate to make residents' lives difficult over a period of time, rather than depending on media reportage of a single incident.


ps In your years of training to become a criminal barrister, did you ever come across the logical fallacy of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' ?

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

What I mean is that there is no evidence that the damage to the car started the chain if events.

It might have been the catalyst for what happened on the day, but that is a separate concept.

For all we know, damage to the car is just as likely to have been 'the last straw', as to have been 'the first link in the chain'.

But I rely more on common sense and knowledge of how these lowlifes operate to make residents' lives difficult over a period of time, rather than depending on media reportage of a single incident.


ps In your years of training to become a criminal barrister, did you ever come across the logical fallacy of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' ?

It started the chain of events that lead to the 16 year old getting a brain injury. Your basic premise is that the 16 year old is, as you put it, a lowlife, and that you have knowledge of how they operate. I prefer to go on reported facts.

As it has never been reported that there were previous incidents and as we have no evidence that the 16 year old was ever there previously, it simply follows that the criminal damage started the train of events. You espouse that it might have been a catalyst i.e. an event that caused an event. That is what I stated.

And as for your ps, I was never one for learning Latin, even legal latin and abhor anyone who tries to sound clever by quoting it. Most criminal cases are done in plain English. But in my opinion if a judge states that it occurred as it did, I would go by that as opposed to what a random poster, who continually questions my job, relies on.

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

It started the chain of events that lead to the 16 year old getting a brain injury.

Unproven. Still.

Your basic premise is that the 16 year old is, as you put it, a lowlife, and that you have knowledge of how they operate. I prefer to go on reported facts.

In which case you're just a consumer of mass media. They don't lie or distort though. Oh, no.

As it has never been reported that there were previous incidents and as we have no evidence that the 16 year old was ever there previously, it simply follows that the criminal damage started the train of events.

You are actually saying that because something was not reported, it has had no causative effect.

In other words, that because nothing prior to the car damage has been reported, the car damage must be the first act in the chain of events.

That is just puerile gibberish.

And as for your ps, I was never one for learning Latin, even legal latin and abhor anyone who tries to sound clever by quoting it. Most criminal cases are done in plain English.

Most landscape design is done in English as well, but just like the law, the learning of it requires some Latin. You'd know that if had ever been a barrister, and you would have immediately recognised the logical fallacy I mentioned.

But in my opinion if a judge states that it occurred as it did, I would go by that as opposed to what a random poster, who continually questions my job, relies on.

Questioning your job ? Use of the present tense, implying it is your current occupation. Yet, you've already referred to it as being in the past...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111502060&postcount=269

From barrister to PSNI recruit. Bit of a comedown, no ?

Starting to feel sorry for you now. Bye.

JustAThought

I’d love to see ine of the many so called human rights and public interest lobbyist organisations asking for a judicial review if that can be done on the sentencing on this. If a rapist can be given a suspended sentence by Judge Herbert and thousands of suspended sentences handed out hand over fist for recidivist criminals then surely something can be done here. This country has gone completely out of hand in favour of scumbag scrotes and ferral antisocial gangs who terrorise families and neighbourhoods. You can be sure if it was the original judges car there would have been an entirely different handling of the entire case.