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

Boggles

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Because I choose it not to be.

Good for you.

Reality will still be here when you decide to join us all again.

Love your work, keep trucking.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

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?

A fine survey of the evidence, Poirot, but it might be more efficient to start at first principles with Sherlock Holmes. What was a Dublin man doing with a hurl? Is it his habit, to get together with the lads, and go for a puck around a burnt out factory? Hurling on the Cashel Road, is it?

I'd hazard a guess that guys like.this keep hurls in their hallways for the same reason you might see a rotund man with the countenance of a bulldog walking down the street with a baseball bat -- Babe Ruth, he ain't. Trouble seeks out trouble.

Send 'im down

Ken.

Mod-Moved to CA. Read the local charter.

joeguevara

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

A fine survey of the evidence, Poirot, but it might be more efficient to start at first principles with Sherlock Holmes. What was a Dublin man doing with a hurl? Was he keeping it close to him in case one of the lads invited for a puck around a burnt out factory? Hurling on the Cashel Road, is it?

I'd hazard a guess that guys like.this keep hurls in their hallways for the same reason you might see a rotund man with the countenance of a bulldog walking down the street with a baseball bat -- Babe Ruth, he ain't. Trouble seeks out trouble.

Send 'im down

I don't understand your post. Firstly he was convicted and had his sentence increased so your send I'm down comment is irrelevant.

What are you talking about with the rotund man, bulldog and baseball bat comment? You do know that the guy with the Hurley was the person in the house who had his car damaged and not the youths loitering outside.

And finally I live in Dublin and have a Hurley and a set of golf clubs because I play hurling and once a decade golf. Nicky English or Shane Lowry I ain't but a rotund baseball bat holding bulldog reading scmbag I ain't either.

Also maybe update the popular culture references. Poirot and Holmes are too old hat.

Lefty Bicek

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

you might see a rotund man with the countenance of a bulldog walking down the street with a baseball bat -- Babe Ruth, he ain't.

Well, Sherlock...

Babe Ruth might have been your idea of good-looking, and 250lbs might not be your idea of 'rotund'.

But Babe Ruth, he was.

Elementary.

Donnielighto

Let's have a war and send all these lads off to die.

joeguevara

Donnielighto wrote: »

Let's have a war and send all these lads off to die.

As long as we can give them the birch before they go. Might be easier to go back to quack psychology and imprison people based solely on the size and shape of their forehead.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

I don't understand your post. Firstly he was convicted and had his sentence increased so your send I'm down comment is irrelevant.

What are you talking about with the rotund man, bulldog and baseball bat comment? You do know that the guy with the Hurley was the person in the house who had his car damaged and not the youths loitering outside.

I may be fond of the occasional shïtposting but I will not reduce myself to explaining a light-hearted post.

Look in all seriousness the young guy has brain damage, his attacker is in prison, after a jury of his peers convicted him of guilt, after hearing the evidence. Our trying to reconstruct the scene based on our imaginations is futile.

Boggles

He said Curtis saw someone deliberately damage his car and nominated Mr McClelland as the culprit

Did he actually damage his car?

That's kind of important you would think.

Would it kill these court reporters to give just a little bit more detail?

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Well, Sherlock...

Babe Ruth might have been your idea of good-looking, and 250lbs might not be your idea of 'rotund'.

But Babe Ruth, he was.

Elementary.

The game is afoot.

Babe Ruth did not previously spend time in jail for a knife crime unlike the guy with the Hurley.

While Babe Ruth might have been 200+ lb good looks are in the eye of the beholder. ost men, even the greatest ladies' men, have particular "favorite types" of women, subjective turn-ons, and particular traits they especially like in the opposite sex. Ruth seemed unusual in his complete lack of this quality. Ruth just simply loved women- of all types, sizes, races, and personalities.

Hardly a day passed during his baseball career (1914-1935) that he did not have sex with at least one woman. He liked women as much as baseball. Having no favorites, bedding tall women, short ones, fat ones, thin ones, beautiful knockouts, ugly rejects, socialites, film starlets, secretaries, other men's wives, and hookers in every big city in america.

Ruth was a stallion in bed, once making love to a woman seven times in one night- and smoking a cigar between each encounter to boot. Ruth often went to the women's homes, but sometimes he called them up to his hotel.


The issue in this case is not why the guy had a Hurley. It's that he couldn't control his temper even after spending time in prison for violence, took the Hurley, ran after a 16 year old and caved his skull in.

Did anyone notice that the newspaper report stated 'he nominated the 16 year old for committing the criminal damage to his car'. Does anyone posting in favour of the Hurley guy have evidence that the 16 year old did it?

joeguevara

Boggles wrote: »

Did he actually damage his car?

That's kind of important you would think.

Would it kill these court reporters to give just a little bit more detail?

I posted same thing seconds after. In the grand scheme of things so. Even if he did the fact that the assault took place a considerable distance away meant it's pure assault and no mitigation. The 16 year old did swing the plank.

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

The game is afoot.

Babe Ruth did not previously spend time in jail for a knife crime unlike the guy with the Hurley.

While Babe Ruth might have been 200+ lb good looks are in the eye of the beholder. ost men, even the greatest ladies' men, have particular "favorite types" of women, subjective turn-ons, and particular traits they especially like in the opposite sex. Ruth seemed unusual in his complete lack of this quality. Ruth just simply loved women- of all types, sizes, races, and personalities.

Hardly a day passed during his baseball career (1914-1935) that he did not have sex with at least one woman. He liked women as much as baseball. Having no favorites, bedding tall women, short ones, fat ones, thin ones, beautiful knockouts, ugly rejects, socialites, film starlets, secretaries, other men's wives, and hookers in every big city in america.

Ruth was a stallion in bed, once making love to a woman seven times in one night- and smoking a cigar between each encounter to boot. Ruth often went to the women's homes, but sometimes he called them up to his hotel.


The issue in this case is not why the guy had a Hurley. It's that he couldn't control his temper even after spending time in prison for violence, took the Hurley, ran after a 16 year old and caved his skull in.

Did anyone notice that the newspaper report stated 'he nominated the 16 year old for committing the criminal damage to his car'. Does anyone posting in favour of the Hurley guy have evidence that the 16 year old did it?

I am totally disinterested in what Mr. Curtis did in the past, and am happy enough that Mr. McClelland got his comeuppance.

It's probably unknowable, but a successful element of 'pour encourager les autres' would be the cherry on the cake.

I see sheep

A lot of nonsense being posted here by Travis Bickle wannabes.
I've some sympathy for the man but he's obviously got anger management issues and if it wasn't this assault it was only a matter of time before his switch flipped again and he hurt someone seriously (possibly someone posting here or your families.)

I've lived in rough places and been threatened by young lads. The best thing to do is ignore them and act like you're not bothered.
Grabbing a hurl and going outside is giving them exactly what they want.

Having said that, even at that stage the young lads have obviously started to walk away.
If he, having chased them off returns to the house and has a cup of tea with his Mam, then grand no major drama.
He cannot be allowed to continue pursuing them then violently assault one of them.

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I am totally disinterested in what Mr. Curtis did in the past, and am happy enough that Mr. McClelland got his comeuppance.

It's probably unknowable, but a successful element of 'pour encourager les autres' would be the cherry on the cake.

Unfortunately while being disinterested in Mr Curtis past is your personal choice, the fact that a person who served a prison sentence previously for a violent crime and made a decision to commit a violent crime again is probably the most pertinent point in this case. A person who recommits an offense after a previous lengthy case shows someone who can't control his anger. What if the next time someone causes him to blow his fuse is when someone accidentally bumps into him.

You said you are happy that Mr. mcClelland is happy he got his comeuppance. That is quite a radical thing to say when we know nothing about him and don't even know if he did the criminal damage that caused the fracas. I know you could argue that he swung s plank and missed but what is he supposed to do if someone is coming at him with a hurley. It is very difficult to miss someone while swinging a plank in close quarters and the fact he then ran away means he probably swung it to scare me Curtis and get a chance to run. So what comeuppance does he deserve. A fractured skull and permanent brain injury is deserved comeuppamce for what.

As for pour encourager les autres' being a cherry on top, you do know that that phrase is uttered ironically and has the opposite meaning you espouse. And since when did physical violence ever deter future acts? If it did countries with death penalties would have no violent crime or countries where they cut off your hand for stealing would have no theft.

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

Unfortunately while being disinterested in Mr Curtis past is your personal choice, the fact that a person who served a prison sentence previously for a violent crime and made a decision to commit a violent crime again is probably the most pertinent point in this case.

Total rubbish.

A person who recommits an offense after a previous lengthy case shows someone who can't control his anger. What if the next time someone causes him to blow his fuse is when someone accidentally bumps into him.

Whataboutery, irrelevant to this thread.

You said you are happy that Mr. mcClelland is happy he got his comeuppance. That is quite a radical thing to say when we know nothing about him and don't even know if he did the criminal damage that caused the fracas. I know you could argue that he swung s plank and missed but what is he supposed to do if someone is coming at him with a hurley.

Run, instead of picking up a plank. It's what you'd do, no ?

It is very difficult to miss someone while swinging a plank in close quarters and the fact he then ran away means he probably swung it to scare me Curtis and get a chance to run. So what comeuppance does he deserve. A fractured skull and permanent brain injury is deserved comeuppamce for what.

'Probably' ie you're constructing a story that you have provided no evidential basis for, just to reinforce your point of view.

As for pour encourager les autres' being a cherry on top, you do know that that phrase is uttered ironically and has the opposite meaning you espouse.

I didn't utter it ironically at all. I like to think that some of the scrote accomplices will get the message. I hope so.

And since when did physical violence ever deter future acts? If it did countries with death penalties would have no violent crime or countries where they cut off your hand for stealing would have no theft.

Is that you answering your own question ?

scamalert

joeguevara wrote: »

Unfortunately while being disinterested in Mr Curtis past is your personal choice, the fact that a person who served a prison sentence previously for a violent crime and made a decision to commit a violent crime again is probably the most pertinent point in this case. A person who recommits an offense after a previous lengthy case shows someone who can't control his anger. What if the next time someone causes him to blow his fuse is when someone accidentally bumps into him.

You said you are happy that Mr. mcClelland is happy he got his comeuppance. That is quite a radical thing to say when we know nothing about him and don't even know if he did the criminal damage that caused the fracas. I know you could argue that he swung s plank and missed but what is he supposed to do if someone is coming at him with a hurley. It is very difficult to miss someone while swinging a plank in close quarters and the fact he then ran away means he probably swung it to scare me Curtis and get a chance to run. So what comeuppance does he deserve. A fractured skull and permanent brain injury is deserved comeuppamce for what.

As for pour encourager les autres' being a cherry on top, you do know that that phrase is uttered ironically and has the opposite meaning you espouse. And since when did physical violence ever deter future acts? If it did countries with death penalties would have no violent crime or countries where they cut off your hand for stealing would have no theft.

One would have to have enough IQ at 16 to know that if your damaging someones property in front of them, and try to attack then run wasn't bright idea to begin with, so in retrospective minimal brain damage :cool: done really, just maybe rest of 20 ish scum will think twice about terrorizing people as law doesn't make impact on them.

str8talkingguy

I see sheep wrote: »

A lot of nonsense being posted here by Travis Bickle wannabes.
I've some sympathy for the man but he's obviously got anger management issues and if it wasn't this assault it was only a matter of time before his switch flipped again and he hurt someone seriously (possibly someone posting here or your families.)

I've lived in rough places and been threatened by young lads. The best thing to do is ignore them and act like you're not bothered.
Grabbing a hurl and going outside is giving them exactly what they want.

Having said that, even at that stage the young lads have obviously started to walk away.
If he, having chased them off returns to the house and has a cup of tea with his Mam, then grand no major drama.
He cannot be allowed to continue pursuing them then violently assault one of them.

How is it giving them exactly what they want?You think that kid wanted his head caved in?its giving them exactly what they don't want.

Never understood this logic,for some people its the only option.If you don't defend yourself or your property things will often get worse,with no protection from the justice system its often the only option.

Eric Cartman

str8talkingguy wrote: »

How is it giving them exactly what they want?You think that kid wanted his head caved in?its giving them exactly what they don't want.

Never understood this logic,for some people its the only option.If you don't defend yourself or your property things will often get worse,with no protection from the justice system its often the only option.

if more kids understood that the penalty for damaging a car might be a hurl to the skull, they might think twice about being scrotes.

scamalert

str8talkingguy wrote: »

How is it giving them exactly what they want?You think that kid wanted his head caved in?its giving them exactly what they don't want.

Never understood this logic,for some people its the only option.If you don't defend yourself or your property things will often get worse,with no protection from the justice system its often the only option.

i think he meant, once one defended scum should moved on to key some other cars and plank some weaker person, that would thought them justice and life changing experience, since system works so great in prevention, that numbers keep rising and more are left afraid is sad reality.

joeguevara

scamalert wrote: »

One would have to have enough IQ at 16 to know that if your damaging someones property in front of them, and try to attack then run wasn't bright idea to begin with, so in retrospective minimal brain damage :cool: done really, just maybe rest of 20 ish scum will think twice about terrorizing people as law doesn't make impact on them.

There is no evidence that the 16 year old did the damage.

What is the definition of minimal brain damage?

Where does it say anywhere that the 20 people were terrorising Mr. Curtis. That is quite a leap to make. Was any other damage to anyone's property done? Was any other reports of anti-social behaviour reported by other neighbours who didn't go out with a Hurley. Usually if terrorising occurs there is multiple reports and damage is not a single occurrence.

So your conclusion is to disregard the law in favour of vigilante attacks and brain damage is acceptable.

joeguevara

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if more kids understood that the penalty for damaging a car might be a hurl to the skull, they might think twice about being scrotes.

Is that the same as people understanding they will get the death penalty for murder will stop murdering taking place? It just doesn't work like that.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

joeguevara wrote: »

Unfortunately while being disinterested in Mr Curtis past is your personal choice, the fact that a person who served a prison sentence previously for a violent crime and made a decision to commit a violent crime again is probably the most pertinent point in this case. A person who recommits an offense after a previous lengthy case shows someone who can't control his anger. What if the next time someone causes him to blow his fuse is when someone accidentally bumps into him.

I see no evidence in this case that the judges took his past into account. In fact it wasn’t mentioned in the report by the op. And not in any argument here for the first few pages.

As for pour encourager les autres' being a cherry on top, you do know that that phrase is uttered ironically and has the opposite meaning you espouse. And since when did physical violence ever deter future acts? If it did countries with death penalties would have no violent crime or countries where they cut off your hand for stealing would have no theft.

Threats of future violence or punishment by protection rackets do in fact deter local anti social behaviour, it’s not just protection from the rackteers themselves.

The state has decided to not police low level criminality in working class areas ( 20 youths harassing the judge’s parents in a leafy suburb would find themselves in prison, however) and has surrendered its duty of protection to the powerless. Besides that it penalises anybody at a minor level who engages in supposed vigilantism but at the higher level of criminality it pays them off.

The Irish legal system is corrupt to its core.

str8talkingguy

joeguevara wrote: »

There is no evidence that the 16 year old did the damage.

What is the definition of minimal brain damage?

Where does it say anywhere that the 20 people were terrorising Mr. Curtis. That is quite a leap to make. Was any other damage to anyone's property done? Was any other reports of anti-social behaviour reported by other neighbours who didn't go out with a Hurley. Usually if terrorising occurs there is multiple reports and damage is not a single occurrence.

So your conclusion is to disregard the law in favour of vigilante attacks and brain damage is acceptable.

There is no law in this country to disregard,go spend a day or two in court see how it really works.

Dress in a suit and tie no previous convictions respect the system and they throw the book at you.Come in with your tracksuit and runners on high five with the lawyers and guards and walk out with a slap on the wrist.

There is just the illusion of justice you currently still believe in that illusion hopefully for you,you never see how it really works.

I see sheep

str8talkingguy wrote: »

How is it giving them exactly what they want?You think that kid wanted his head caved in?its giving them exactly what they don't want.

Never understood this logic,for some people its the only option.If you don't defend yourself or your property things will often get worse,with no protection from the justice system its often the only option.

Getting a rise out of someone is exactly what they want.

It's never the only option.

If that were so they'd be cases like this everyday.

99% people can handle it without going straight to serious assault.

In fact anyone who does this is showing real weakness.

Macdarack

The only wrong here is the lad who swung the hurly got caught, I've no bother with a scumbag getting his skull smashed. I know a few scrotes I'd throw off a cliff if I knew I'd get away with it. Cops and the judges are wronging the right people in Ireland, they're supposed to f_€kin protect us.

I see sheep

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if more kids understood that the penalty for damaging a car might be a hurl to the skull, they might think twice about being scrotes.

No, they'd just start carrying knives.

If you're comparing damage to a car (a piece of metal) with nearly murdering a 16 year you're talking rubbish.

It takes a coward to go straight for a weapon, if he was a real man he would have ignored them.

Lefty Bicek

I see sheep wrote: »

Getting a rise out of someone is exactly what they want.

It's never the only option.

If that were so they'd be cases like this everyday.

99% people can handle it without going straight to serious assault.

In fact anyone who does this is showing real weakness.

More accurately - 99% of people, including you, haven't the guts.

joeguevara

str8talkingguy wrote: »

There is no law in this country to disregard,go spend a day or two in court see how it really works.

Dress in a suit and tie no previous convictions respect the system and they throw the book at you.Come in with your tracksuit and runners on high five with the lawyers and guards and walk out with a slap on the wrist.

There is just the illusion of justice you currently still believe in that illusion hopefully for you,you never see how it really works.

I worked as a criminal barrister for 10 years so am well aware of how things work. By your argument about having the book thrown at you if you dress in a suit and tie with no previous convictions would mean that our prisons would be full to the brim with people from good socio-economic backgrounds. The reality is that the majority of prisoners have never sat a state exam and over half leaving school by the age of 15.

In those 10 years as a barrister I never once saw a client high five any lawyer. As a barrister you have no relationship with a client and are totally agnostic to whether they are convicted as long as you put forward the best case within the law. The idea of high fiving gardai is as far removed from the truth as can be. Why go to the bother of investigation if you are going to high five them on the way out.

I have utter contempt for anyone who breaks the law. But I don't have an illusion of Justice. You have an illusion of suit wearing people being banged up carte blanche which is simply not true.

Lefty Bicek

joeguevara wrote: »

I worked as a criminal barrister for 10 years so am well aware of how things work. By your argument about having the book thrown at you if you dress in a suit and tie with no previous convictions would mean that our prisons would be full to the brim with people from good socio-economic backgrounds. The reality is that the majority of prisoners have never sat a state exam and over half leaving school by the age of 15.

In those 10 years as a barrister I never once saw a client high five any lawyer. As a barrister you have no relationship with a client and are totally agnostic to whether they are convicted as long as you put forward the best case within the law. The idea of high fiving gardai is as far removed from the truth as can be. Why go to the bother of investigation if you are going to high five them on the way out.

I have utter contempt for anyone who breaks the law. But I don't have an illusion of Justice. You have an illusion of suit wearing people being banged up carte blanche which is simply not true.

This is just not believable.

joeguevara

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

More accurately - 99% of people, including you, haven't the guts.

It doesn't take guts to Chase a considerable distance and attack a 16 year old who may or may not have damaged your car.