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

Boggles

beejee wrote: »

Every now and then a "hard man" picks on the wrong person and they get the comeuppance of their life.

Like his ex girlfriend.

beejee

Boggles wrote: »

Like his ex girlfriend.

I know nothing about the background of anything here. If true, a bunch of knackers were wrecking your man's car, he confronted them, somebody took a swing then was promptly knocked tf out.

I don't care if someone involved had an allergy to lemons at 7 years old.

Boggles

beejee wrote: »

I know nothing about the background of anything here. If true, a bunch of knackers were wrecking your man's car, he confronted them, somebody took a swing then was promptly knocked tf out.

I don't care if someone involved had an allergy to lemons at 7 years old.

Allergy - attempted murder.

Spuds!

spurious

spurious wrote: »

I'm getting the impression some posters know what it is like to deal with these feral gangs and others don't.

I think that's pretty much the gist of it, alright.


Some people are commenting, having never experienced it, or having lived through it.



The chap with the hurl did the right thing. I just wish he could have broken all of their skulls.


In a roundabout way, I'm kind of thankful that these anti social problems are getting more and more common and spreading further and further. The more people that are helplessly experiencing it, the more that may actually do something about it, and the more likely it is that, perhaps, possibly, maybe, the legislature may change to actually, dare i say it, punish the scumbags.




Age of being considered an adult for legal purposes should be dropped down to 15-16 instead of 18. You quite literally have 17 years olds, that are bigger than most people, intimidating frail elderly women and if the Gardai appear they are treated like a 4 year old who doesn't understand why the square shape doesn't fit in the circular hole. :rolleyes:

beejee

Boggles wrote: »

Allergy - attempted murder.

Spuds!

Comeuppance, plain and simple.

It's not hard to imagine that the gang of knackers have caused misery for many other people and had zero repercussions.

If they had been put in their place several incidents previous to this, it probably wouldn't have required half as much as drastic.

But that didn't happen, so they got bolder and more brazen, and the severity of the delayed reaction eventually caught up with the severity of the emboldenment.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

Comeuppance, plain and simple.

It's not hard to imagine that the gang of knackers have caused misery for many other people and had zero repercussions.

If they had been put in their place several incidents previous to this, it probably wouldn't have required half as much as drastic.

But that didn't happen, so they got bolder and more brazen, and the severity of the delayed reaction eventually caught up with the severity of the emboldenment.

Hurley man got a very light sentence for trying to kill his partner with a knife. if he had been kept inside, he would not have been able to do this crime.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

end of the road wrote: »

no it isn't.
it is saying one cannot engage in assalt.
very simple stuff i would have thought.

It’s saying you can’t engage in self defense even if your aging parents are under attack by a mob. This mob is however protected.

there is no judicial support for lawlessness.
judges can only operate within the laws they have been given, and they can only implement sentences within the rules they have been given.
the people turning to "protection" rackets would likely do so anyway. the justice system is just a convenient excuse.

The judges have plenty leeway of how they apply laws, and have chosen to implement amongst the lowest penalties in the western world, at least on criminals if not those defending their property of family.

You think people want protection rackets? It’s a shake down, but the Irish legal system isn’t fit for purpose and so it goes on.

Edit:

I mean even the DCC has to hand over their lunch money.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Hurley man got a very light sentence for trying to kill his partner with a knife. if he had been kept inside, he would not have been able to do this crime.

Very true. If the skulled one had not been a knacker, he'd not have become a human sliotar either.

If's and buts.

hatrickpatrick

end of the road wrote: »

there is no judicial support for lawlessness.

There absolutely is.

judges can only operate within the laws they have been given, and they can only implement sentences within the rules they have been given.

No judge is in any way obliged to suspend any part (or more frequently all) of a sentence which has been passed according to the law on sentencing for that particular crime. Yet it happens routinely, most likely because of prison overcrowding. Meanwhile, the government sell land they had previously earmarked for building new prisons on the grounds that they’ve decided jailing people isn’t the right thing to do. In my view, judges should shrug and say “not my problem, build more f*cking jails” if the government expect them to ease overcrowding by not jailing scumbags.

end of the road

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s saying you can’t engage in self defense even if your aging parents are under attack by a mob.

no it isn't.
it is saying that following someone and engaging in assalt is not self defense.
there was no self defense in this case, simply violent thuggery. one happened to go that bit further and is now rightly out of society, the same individual having previous for violent behaviour.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

This mob is however protected.

they aren't protected. they are subject to the law.
however if the gardai can't get evidence then they can't do very much unfortunately.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The judges have plenty leeway of how they apply laws, and have chosen to implement amongst the lowest penalties in the western world, at least on criminals if not those defending their property of family.

nobody goes to jail for genuinely defending their property, i have never heard of such happening in ireland.
one goes to jail generally for over-stepping the mark however.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

You think people want protection rackets? It’s a shake down, but the Irish legal system isn’t fit for purpose and so it goes on.

Edit:

I mean even the DCC has to hand over their lunch money.

yes, i think some people do want them, along with all of the other similar gangs who pretend to be acting in the name of "justice" .

8-10

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Hurley man got a very light sentence for trying to kill his partner with a knife. if he had been kept inside, he would not have been able to do this crime.

What sentence did he get for it?

Boggles

8-10 wrote: »

What sentence did he get for it?

6 years with 2 suspended I think I read earlier.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Age of being considered an adult for legal purposes should be dropped down to 15-16 instead of 18. You quite literally have 17 years olds, that are bigger than most people, intimidating frail elderly women and if the Gardai appear they are treated like a 4 year old who doesn't understand why the square shape doesn't fit in the circular hole. :rolleyes:

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".

8-10

Boggles wrote: »

6 years with 2 suspended I think I read earlier.

Was that not for the hurley attack?

Boggles

8-10 wrote: »

Was that not for the hurley attack?

No he got 4 for that 2 years suspended, upgraded to 5 with 1 year suspended on appeal.

I can't find the link I saw it in, if I do I will throw it up.

dxhound2005

8-10 wrote: »

Was that not for the hurley attack?

He got 4 years with 2 suspended for the hurley attack. That was appealed on the grounds that it was too lenient. It was increased to 5 with one suspended.

8-10

Ah thanks. I'm surprised he got some of his sentence suspended this time if he's previously been inside

Force Carrier

These sentences are largely notional.

The Prison Service decide when prisoners get out. Without reference back to the Judge. They call it 'Temporary Release' and 'Early Release'

Stints of 'Temporary Release' - in and out while serving their sentence. Few weeks in, few weeks out.

Then eventually comes the 'Early Release'. Out the door to resume business.

AllForIt

end of the road wrote: »

no it isn't.
it is saying one cannot engage in assalt.
very simple stuff i would have thought.

Well yes, but what about mitigating circumstances. Did the judge take into account that he was antagonized (I don't know maybe he did but was overturned). It looks like his previous criminal history was taken into account.

there is no judicial support for lawlessness.
judges can only operate within the laws they have been given, and they can only implement sentences within the rules they have been given.
the people turning to "protection" rackets would likely do so anyway. the justice system is just a convenient excuse.

Not as such no. But mitigating circumstances are applied such as social background, whether they live in deprived areas, family influence and so on. That then functions as a kind of support. I doubt the short fuse of the assailant was taken into account, his background, his physiological state of mind etc. That would seem unfair.



I wonder if any action has been taken again the gang or even looked into. It's not like the law don't have any evidence as they have an eyewitness evidence, the assailant. And what are they going to do about the gang going forward? Just wait for another incident like this to happen I suppose and brush it of as one of those things we can't do much about.

v638sg7k1a92bx

I think what is annoying for most people is when the law comes down like a ton of bricks on some people and like a soft summer mist on others. Keep in mind that Tom Humphries was convicted for 2.5 years for sexual abuse involving a minor.

This is ultimately a failure of the Gardaí and community policing to an extent that people feel the need to take the law into their own hands. This is why he really got the 4 years because ultimately what the state and it’s apparatus e.g. Gardaí, Judges, politicians et fear the most is the possibility that people will take matters into their own hands en mass and dump them out of their ivory towers.

joeguevara

AllForIt wrote: »

Well yes, but what about mitigating circumstances. Did the judge take into account that he was antagonized (I don't know maybe he did but was overturned). It looks like his previous criminal history was taken into account.

By antagonism I presume you mean provocation. I didn't see the actual damage to the car but unless the 16 year old set the car on fire and stood at the window shouting up c willing for the guy to make his day, I doubt provocation could be raised as a mitigating factor. Especially as the guy would have had to go find his Hurley, probably put on his shoes, open the door, find the 16 year old out of a group of 20 people, and then run after him. There is a lot of time for any provocation that existed (if any was there at all) to be displaced.

One thing that I haven't seen raised is how did he know was the person who committed the damage to the car. Presumably it was dark, it was a group of 20 people that he didn't know, he was looking through a window and then had to search for a Hurley and run out the door losing sight of the person.

Or was the criminal damage committed after he ran out of the house with a Hurley?

dxhound2005

Jensen Enough Pinhead wrote: »

I think what is annoying for most people is when the law comes down like a ton of bricks on some people and like a soft summer mist on others. Keep in mind that Tom Humphries was convicted for 2.5 years for sexual abuse involving a minor.

This is ultimately a failure of the Gardaí and community policing to an extent that people feel the need to take the law into their own hands. This is why he really got the 4 years because ultimately what the state and it’s apparatus e.g. Gardaí, Judges, politicians et fear the most is the possibility that people will take matters into their own hands en mass and dump them out of their ivory towers.

I have never taken the law into my own hands. I could have a couple of times, but that would have amounted to road rage. The sort of people who do, are not those that would be suitable to be vigilantes. Because they would just as easily turn on some family where a child had a playground falling out with one of their children.

decky1

LuasSimon wrote: »

What are people supposed to do , let scumbags destroy your car outside your house .
The judges in Ireland really are on the scumbags side

this is happening in all situation's , everything is laid out to protect the offernder nothing there to help the victim of crime, seen them on tele last night on one of those cop shows 3 of them arrested and laughing at the camera 'sure we do the same when we get out' was their attitude, Bring back the Birch it would give them something to think about.:mad:

joeguevara

decky1 wrote: »

this is happening in all situation's , everything is laid out to protect the offernder nothing there to help the victim of crime, seen them on tele last night on one of those cop shows 3 of them arrested and laughing at the camera 'sure we do the same when we get out' was their attitude, Bring back the Birch it would give them something to think about.:mad:

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.

kirving

I live in a nice enough area, but nevertheless teenagers caused multiple neighbors endless hassle in the late 90s. Zero interest from the Gards whatsoever.

Purely looking for a reaction most of the time.

One day a 17 year old threw a rock and broke a neighbors satellite dish. Neighbor comes out and squares up the the 17yo who is actually bigger than him.

Bit of pushing starts and the 17yo gets a wheel brace from his car to use as a weapon, so my neighbor goes inside and gets a machete.

All of a sudden it's the teenagers calling the Gards (and their parents). Their behaviour changed very quickly when they realised their actions could have real consequences.

Not saying that fracturing the guys skull is OK, but I completely understand why the guy lost his temper and caught and unlucky strike.

Those saying he should have called the Gards obviously have never dealt with their home being terrorised morning, noon and night.

Lefty Bicek

Boggles wrote: »

Like his ex girlfriend.

Irrelevant to this story.

If he was saving your head from being stoved in by a teenage piece of dirt, you wouldn't say no.

You holier-than-thou muppets on here haven't a notion.

Lefty Bicek

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Hurley man got a very light sentence for trying to kill his partner with a knife. if he had been kept inside, he would not have been able to do this crime.

He has though, more than likely prevented many more crimes from being committed.

By a 'plank'.

Thank you, Mr. Curtis.

Boggles

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Irrelevant to this story.

How is his past detention for extreme violence irrelevant to the story?

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

You holier-than-thou muppets on here haven't a notion.

I'm not religious nor have I ever met Jim Henson.

Lefty Bicek

Boggles wrote: »

How is his past detention for extreme violence irrelevant to the story?

Because I choose it not to be. Nothing to do with the circumstances of this case at all.

If anything, it just shows that people who have done bad, can do good. But why make anything out of it ?

You can choose otherwise, if your narrative requires it.

I'm not religious nor have I ever met Jim Henson.

Nor, now that I think of it, have you even the sense of a doll with a human hand up it's jaxie.

joeguevara

Force Carrier wrote: »

These sentences are largely notional.

The Prison Service decide when prisoners get out. Without reference back to the Judge. They call it 'Temporary Release' and 'Early Release'

Stints of 'Temporary Release' - in and out while serving their sentence. Few weeks in, few weeks out.

Then eventually comes the 'Early Release'. Out the door to resume business.

This is simply not true. Prisoners are automatically entitled to 1/4 of their sentence which is called remission or colloquially good behaviour. It is enshrined in legislation and makes prison life run much more smoothly.

Stints of temporary release are provided to prisoners nearing the end of their sentences to assist them reintegrate with their family or support group and society in general.

The vast majority of prisoners who get early release that is more than the guaranteed 1/4 remission are for people who received sentences for non-payment of fines.

Your statement that sentences are notional and Prisoners are on a merry go round of temporary release is a popular but untrue opinion.