Internet Troll gets three years

ohnonotgmail

Tony EH wrote: »

^
Why is this thread a merry-go-round of repeated information.

How many times does the above have to be pointed out?

how many times do posters have to downplay what occurred? i dont see you pointing that out? why is that?

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how many times do posters have to downplay what occurred? i dont see you pointing that out? why is that?

That's kinda my point.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how many times do posters have to downplay what occurred? i dont see you pointing that out? why is that?

Ah, what? He asking why it has to be repeated that the women didn’t know that he never left his house. He’s agreeing with you.

SaltSweatSugar

As there seems to be some confusion (some wilful it would appear) as to what harassment actually entails in Irish law, this is the wording under the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. I don’t think I’ve seen it posted in the thread but apologies if it has been.

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.

What this guy did is textbook harassment. Baffled as to how people are still defending him.

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect here.

Some people appear to be arguing that for people who put their opinions out there in public if someone makes them feel unsafe, from a distance anonymously,
someone who is clearly mentally ill and in need of psychiatric treatment, it should carry a much worse penalty than someone who actually makes you unsafe by repeatedly beating you or raping you.

Here's a man who got 2 1/2 years for raping a sleeping woman at a party... And this kind of sentence is not unusual. Is this a less serious offence than this guy? REALLLY ???

So anonymously harassing wealthy privileged public figures is WORSE than raping a woman at a party. If you don't agree then you are somehow a hater. Well then call me a hater.

A four-year jail term, with the last 18 months suspended, was imposed on Owen Roche, aged 34, of 2 Hanover House, Fermoy, when he was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman as she slept after a drinks party.

...

The judge said he was distinctly unimpressed by the tone taken by the accused when he was interviewed by gardaí.

Roche referred to the victim as a “lying c***”.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cork-man-back-in-jail-after-running-riot-12e9e7f7-3d46-4a46-a979-bcd8998afc07-ds

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect here.

Some people appear to be arguing that for people who put their opinions out there in public if someone makes them feel unsafe, from a distance anonymously,
someone who is clearly mentally ill and in need of psychiatric treatment, it should carry a much worse penalty than someone who actually makes you unsafe by repeatedly beating you or raping you.

Here's a man who got 2 1/2 years for raping a sleeping woman at a party... And this kind of sentence is not unusual. Is this a less serious offence than this guy? REALLLY ???

So anonymously harassing wealthy privileged public figures is WORSE than raping a woman at a party. If you don't agree then you are somehow a hater. Well then call me a hater.



https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cork-man-back-in-jail-after-running-riot-12e9e7f7-3d46-4a46-a979-bcd8998afc07-ds

The rapist got a sentence that is too light. that does not make the sentence in this thread incorrect. This has all been explained many many times on this thread. Unfortunately you do not seem capable of absorbing the information given to you.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Some people appear to be arguing that for people who put their opinions out there in public if someone makes them feel unsafe, from a distance anonymously, someone who is clearly mentally ill and in need of psychiatric treatment, it should carry a much worse penalty than someone who actually makes you unsafe by repeatedly beating you or raping you.

There's nobody saying that and you know it. Stop playing silly buggers. :rolleyes:

nkl12xtw5goz70

SaltSweatSugar wrote: »

As there seems to be some confusion (some wilful it would appear) as to what harassment actually entails in Irish law...

I don't think people are confused about the definition of harassment in Irish law.

At stake is the three-year prison sentence for sending messages calling various journalists nobodies, wannabes, self-absorbed narcissists, and the like, looking up pictures of them online, and on one occasion saying "I'll be right over" when one woman said her roommate was out for the evening.

By comparison, another man received a six-month suspended sentence last year for telling Labour senator Lorraine Higgins "I'm going to put bullets up your f***ing a*** and watch you bleed like a river," among other highly explicit death threats that left the senator genuinely fearing for her life.

Facing a barrage of public outrage over his lenient sentencing of sex offenders, and thousands of people signing petitions calling for his removal, Judge Nolan used this case to send a message to his critics.

Sentencing a nonviolent, mentally ill recluse to three years behind bars over relatively mild harassment of some journalists has much more to do with Nolan's poor standing in the public eye than with anything this man actually did. The sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offence committed as well as to other sentences routinely handed down in the Irish courts.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The rapist got a sentence that is too light. that does not make the sentence in this thread incorrect. This has all been explained many many times on this thread. Unfortunately you do not seem capable of absorbing the information given to you.

I agree the rapists sentence is too light as sentencing for violent crimes in general is, but I disagree that 3 years is in any way an appropriate sentence for this guy.

By that measure we should jail homeless people that shout abuse at people in the street too.

No need to personally attack me - you could end up with a jail term.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree the rapists sentence is too light as sentencing for violent crimes in general is, but I disagree that 3 years is in any way an appropriate sentence for this guy.

By that measure we should jail homeless people that shout abuse at people in the street too.

YOu clearly didn't read the piece of legislation that was posted. people are spoonfeeding information to you and you still dont understand.

Deleted User wrote: »

No need to personally attack me - you could end up with a jail term.

Nope. you have made no effort to understand the offence he was found guilty of. there are a couple of very important words in the legislation. you clearly did not notice what they are.

SaintLeibowitz

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

I don't think people are confused about the definition of harassment in Irish law.

At stake is the three-year prison sentence for sending messages calling various journalists nobodies, wannabes, self-absorbed narcissists, and the like, looking up pictures of them online, and on one occasion saying "I'll be right over" when one woman said her roommate was out for the evening.

By comparison, another man received a six-month suspended sentence last year for telling Labour senator Lorraine Higgins "I'm going to put bullets up your f***ing a*** and watch you bleed like a river," among other highly explicit death threats that left the senator genuinely fearing for her life.

Facing a barrage of public outrage over his lenient sentencing of sex offenders, and thousands of people signing petitions calling for his removal, Judge Nolan used this case to send a message to his critics.

Sentencing a nonviolent, mentally ill recluse to three years behind bars over relatively mild harassment of some journalists has much more to do with Nolan's poor standing in the public eye than with anything this man actually did. The sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offence committed as well as to other sentences routinely handed down in the Irish courts.

It's not working Permabear.

Sabre0001

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

By comparison, another man received a six-month suspended sentence last year for telling Labour senator Lorraine Higgins "I'm going to put bullets up your f***ing a*** and watch you bleed like a river," among other highly explicit death threats that left the senator genuinely fearing for her life.

Can we agree that the sentence in this instance (and other cases that you've outlined) are too short?

That doesn't necessarily mean that this sentence is too long, but that punishment for other cases needs to be more severe.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nope. you have made no effort to understand the offence he was found guilty of. there are a couple of very important words in the legislation. you clearly did not notice what they are.

Someone is suffering from a lack of a sense of humour.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone is suffering from a lack of a sense of humour.

I dont see the humour is harassing multiple women over multiple years. I dont see the humour in lying about a very sensitive subject.

Andreas77

it feels very stiff,

Sabre0001

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Can we agree that the sentence in this instance (and other cases that you've outlined) are too short?

That doesn't necessarily mean that this sentence is too long, but that punishment for other cases needs to be more severe.

I dunno, I think it's probably an appropriate sentence. Do it again and you go to jail.

A suspended sentence in the case where someone uses physical violence in anything other than self defence is not appropriate.

There are teenagers up and down the country being bullied to a worse degree than either of these cases yet nothing happens to the perpetrators. Maybe suspension and expulsion from school would send a message to these people so that when they become adults they might think twice about this kind of behaviour.

Also the likes of Maria Bailey of Swinggate should get a suspended sentence too for insurance fraud.

IMHO.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Can we agree that the sentence in this instance (and other cases that you've outlined) are too short?

That doesn't necessarily mean that this sentence is too long, but that punishment for other cases needs to be more severe.

In broad terms, the Irish judiciary needs to address these incomprehensible inconsistencies in sentencing. We should not be seeing such variation from judge to judge and offence to offence. It should not be up to the mood of the judge on the day as to whether someone will walk free or spend years behind bars.

I would regard the death threats made by Stephen French as being of a different order of magnitude than the messages sent by Doolin. There's no rationale for letting the former walk free while the latter goes to prison for three years.

Sabre0001

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

In broad terms, the Irish judiciary needs to address these incomprehensible inconsistencies in sentencing. We should not be seeing such variation from judge to judge and offence to offence. It should not be up to the mood of the judge on the day as to whether someone will walk free or spend years behind bars.

I would regard the death threats made by Stephen French as being of a different order of magnitude than the messages sent by Doolin. There's no rationale for letting the former walk free while the latter goes to prison for three years.

Agreed on both counts.

But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that this sentence is too long. It does, however, highlight that other sentences have been criminally short / non existent.

riclad

i think he was very rude and insulting to those women ,
he did harass them.
I do,nt think he made any serious threats to them.
he was a recluse, he left his house once in 5 years .
he was not a stalker, he never followed anyone .
Twitter needs to act on this ,
the gardai should be able to go to judge ,and get a court order,
person x is harassing someone please suspend and block any person who use,s this ip adress from signing on or obtaining a new twitter account.
Its easy to get evidence by simply taking screenshots of emails
and tweets he sent to his victim,s .
He should go to jail for 1 or 2 years .
Someone who stays in his home all the time, needs help , a long prison sentence could make him worse.
its annoying to get emails or tweets insulting you,
i do not think he made any threats of violence , i would not consider his acts harmful .
I Know someone who lived in a house , his neighbour .,a single man, had loud partys 3 days a week,with loud music playing ,
that would be more harmful in my opinion.

Boom_Bap

riclad wrote: »

i think he was very rude and insulting to those women ,
he did harass them.
I do,nt think he made any serious threats to them.
he was a recluse, he left his house once in 5 years .
he was not a stalker, he never followed anyone .
Twitter needs to act on this ,
the gardai should be able to go to judge ,and get a court order,
person x is harassing someone please suspend and block any person who use,s this ip adress from signing on or obtaining a new twitter account.
Its easy to get evidence by simply taking screenshots of emails
and tweets he sent to his victim,s .
He should go to jail for 1 or 2 years .
Someone who stays in his home all the time, needs help , a long prison sentence could make him worse.
its annoying to get emails or tweets insulting you,
i do not think he made any threats of violence , i would not consider his acts harmful .
I Know someone who lived in a house , his neighbour .,a single man, had loud partys 3 days a week,with loud music playing ,
that would be more harmful in my opinion.

You're talking like he is the victim in this.


How about looking at the people have were on the business end of his harassment. Listen to the words like 'humiliated', 'victimised', 'upset', 'hurt' etc.
Their lives have been impacted in different ways.

paleoperson

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Can we agree that the sentence in this instance (and other cases that you've outlined) are too short?

That doesn't necessarily mean that this sentence is too long, but that punishment for other cases needs to be more severe.

100 million percent yes. Particularly the "suspended" part of it which is a plain joke.

I would say a direct threat to kill a public official should get at least a year in jail. It's not just the fact that someone threatens to kill which is bad enough, it's how they are trying to gain power from it - literally terrorism of the individual. How is that anything like what this guy did.

Delivering abuse through email on the other hand, no matter how long someone does it, doesn't deserve prison time. That's all nonsense. I'm sure the women journalists receive abuse from lots of other people all the time, they didn't think to bring that up.

Twitter might be a little different, but twitter has its own policies and regulations that will ban anyone engaging in harassment. It's funny how saying "I'll be over so" as a joke can land someone in prison in Ireland yet may not even rise to the level of a violation on twitter. Of course it was creepy and bad, but it wasn't throw him in prison bad.

There are multiple people constantly imagining and confabulating that he "found out their addresses", which he did not. Even if you find out someone's address and go to their home, that is still not a real criminal situation. I believe at that stage it would then rise to active harassment, but it's not the end of the world. People's addresses are in general treated as public knowledge. No matter how much well known figures try to hide their addresses they tend to get out and it's not the end of the world. Other people are confabulating that he continued sending messages after he warned warned - no he didn't. The reason he violated his bail was because he sent messages to people connected to them and as far as we know they were not offensive.

I think anyone not only defending this sentence but hurling abuse at people who are against it would seriously want to cop on to yourselves and try to learn to think properly. What you have here is a mentally unstable defendant, but also a mentally unstable judge, and it's a recipe for disaster.

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

100 million percent yes. Particularly the "suspended" part of it which is a plain joke.

I would say a direct threat to kill a public official should get at least a year in jail. It's not just the fact that someone threatens to kill which is bad enough, it's how they are trying to gain power from it - literally terrorism of the individual.

Delivering abuse through email on the other hand, no matter how long someone does it, doesn't deserve prison time. That's all nonsense. I'm sure the women journalists receive abuse from lots of other people all the time, they didn't think to bring that up.

Twitter might be a little different, but twitter has its own policies and regulations that will ban anyone engaging in harassment. It's funny how saying "I'll be over so" as a joke can land someone in prison in Ireland yet may not even rise to the level of a violation on twitter. Of course it was creepy and bad, but it wasn't throw him in prison bad.

There are multiple people constantly imagining and confabulating that he "found out there address". Even if you find out someone's address and go to their home, that is still not a real criminal situation. I believe at that stage it would then rise to active harassment, but it's not the end of the world. People's addresses are in general treated as public knowledge. No matter how much well known figures try to hide their addresses they tend to get out and it's not the end of the world.

I think anyone not only defending this sentence but hurling abuse at people who are against it would seriously want to cop on to yourselves and try to learn to think properly. What you have here is a mentally unstable defendant, but also a mentally unstable judge, and it's a recipe for disaster.

are you really going with the "he was only joking" defence? pathetic.

paleoperson

Boom_Bap wrote: »

How about looking at the people have were on the business end of his harassment. Listen to the words like 'humiliated', 'victimised', 'upset', 'hurt' etc.
Their lives have been impacted in different ways.

He IS the victim.

I've been humiliated and upset by people who've said things to me, does that mean they're perpetrators of a crime?

It seems like some people have no idea how to analyze this situation properly.

paleoperson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you really going with the "he was only joking" defence? pathetic.

For the showing up at her door? It's a clear fact he was only joking with that because he didn't show up there.

For the rest of it I never suggested and neither would I suggest he was joking.

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

For the showing up at her door? It's a clear fact he was only joking with that because he didn't show up there.

your grasp of logic is as poor as it normally is. He said he would show up. He didn't show up. ergo he was only joking. Aristotle eat your ****ing heart out.

paleoperson wrote: »

For the rest of it I never suggested and neither would I suggest he was joking.

You are quite happy to downplay everything he did and somehow make him out to be the real victim. I have asked a couple of times why certain posters are so keen to do this. the answer is clear to the rest of us.

Boom_Bap

paleoperson wrote: »

He IS the victim.

I've been humiliated and upset by people who've said things to me, does that mean they're perpetrators of a crime?

It seems like some people have no idea how to analyze this situation properly.

So if that person, who upset you or humiliated you didn't perform their actions, would you have felt that way?




Now I think where your failure in analyzing this situation is that you see the perpetrator as a victim. He is not a victim, yes, he is a person that probably needs some sort of help, but not a victim. I don't know his background or anything about him, but from the minuscule pieces of information available, he may need to have a path defined for him.

SusieBlue

paleoperson wrote: »

He IS the victim.

I've been humiliated and upset by people who've said things to me, does that mean they're perpetrators of a crime?

It seems like some people have no idea how to analyze this situation properly.

He is not a victim. The women he harassed and stalked for SIX YEARS are the victims.
Its absolutely baffling that you continue to defend and sympathise with him when he had a plethora of oppertunities to stop what he was doing.
He chose not to take any of those opportunities, and decided to continue contacting these women with no regard for the law and no respect or consideration for those women and how it made them feel.

He had all of this and then some coming to him. Perhaps next time he's warned by the Gardaí told stop harrassing strangers on the internet, he'll take note.

paleoperson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your grasp of logic is as poor as it normally is. He said he would show up. He didn't show up. ergo he was only joking. Aristotle eat your ****ing heart out.

From the way it was written it was clear he was joking.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You are quite happy to downplay everything he did and somehow make him out to be the real victim. I have asked a couple of times why certain posters are so keen to do this. the answer is as clear to the rest of us.

Again with the word "downplay" and again with the ad hominem.

We're discussing the merits of the case. Thinking the penalty doesn't fit the crime doesn't mean anyone is "downplaying" anything. I could just as easily claim you're "exaggerating" his crimes and hurr I wonder what is your motive for it.

Now don't bother replying back to me ohnogmail as I am not impressed by your posts to the point where I think it's a waste of time talking with you any more.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Boom_Bap wrote: »

You're talking like he is the victim in this.

Judge Nolan turned Doolin into a victim of absurdly harsh sentencing when he handed down three years in prison for relatively mild harassment.

Doolin got three years not because he objectively deserved it, or because precedent dictated it, but because Nolan wants to rehabilitate his own reputation in the public eye.

A judge's concern for his own reputation is not sufficient reason to put someone in prison for three years.

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

From the way it was written it was clear he was joking.



Again with the word "downplay" and again with the ad hominem.

We're discussing the merits of the case. Thinking the penalty doesn't fit the crime doesn't mean anyone is "downplaying" anything. I could just as easily claim you're "exaggerating" his crimes and hurr I wonder what is your motive for it.

Now don't bother replying back to me ohnogmail as I am not impressed by your posts to the point where I think it's a waste of time talking with you any more.

Even if you find out someone's address and go to their home, that is still not a real criminal situation. I believe at that stage it would then rise to active harassment

what he did was active harrassment. So you are downplaying what he did.