Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Internet Troll gets three years

Options
1…1314151719

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


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

    No I wouldn't. It was a direct result of their actions that I felt bad, terrible even sometimes. Does that make them a criminal deserving jail?
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    He is not a victim. The women he harassed and stalked for SIX YEARS are the victims.

    He is a victim after receiving this sentence.
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    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 Gardaold stop harrassing strangers on the internet, he'll take note.

    He didn't contact the women again after being warned, he contacted people connected to them. That's how he was gotten.


  • Options
    #483
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


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

    He was warned to stop. he didn't. a suspended sentence would do nothing to stop him doing it again.
    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    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.

    you seem to have this amazing insight into the judges mind. can you clarify how you gained this insight?


  • Options
    #484
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    paleoperson wrote: »
    No I wouldn't. It was a direct result of their actions that I felt bad, terrible even sometimes. Does that make them a criminal deserving jail?



    He is a victim after receiving this sentence.



    He didn't contact the women again after being warned, he contacted people connected to them. That's how he was gotten.

    that further contact was while he was on bail.


  • Options
    #485
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you seem to have this amazing insight into the judges mind. can you clarify how you gained this insight?

    Currently, more than 15,500 people have signed a petition calling for Nolan's resignation due to his lenient sentencing.

    This judge is under intense criticism for handing down fully suspended sentences for serious offences such as possession of thousands of images/videos of child pornography.

    And you're trying to tell us that the sentencing of Doolin is in no way a reaction to that public criticism? That's three years in prison is objectively merited by Doolin's crime of sending six trolling messages a month to his victims, calling them wannabes and self-absorbed narcissists, and by looking up their pictures on the internet?

    Nolan very clearly used this case as an opportunity to answer his critics, which makes the sentence unfair and unjustified, no matter what you think of Doolin's own actions.


  • Options
    #486
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    paleoperson wrote: »


    He is a victim after receiving this sentence.

    That's preposterous. His sentence is half the amount of time he harassed those women for, he should count himself lucky. Do the crime, do the time.

    He didn't contact the women again after being warned, he contacted people connected to them. That's how he was gotten.

    Wrong, he did that while he was out on bail. Proving he had no respect whatsoever for either the law or the women he was told to leave alone.
    He thoroughly deserved his punishment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Currently, more than 15,500 people have signed a petition calling for Nolan's resignation due to his lenient sentencing.

    This judge is under intense criticism for handing down fully suspended sentences for serious offences such as possession of thousands of images/videos of child pornography.

    And you're trying to tell us that the sentencing of Doolin is in no way a reaction to that public criticism? That's three years in prison is objectively merited by Doolin's crime of sending six trolling messages a month to his victims, calling them wannabes and self-absorbed narcissists, and by looking up their pictures on the internet?

    Nolan very clearly used this case as an opportunity to answer his critics, which makes the sentence unfair and unjustified, no matter what you think of Doolin's own actions.

    and again you resort to downplaying what this creep did. you just cant help yourself.


  • Options
    #488
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,734 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Currently, more than 15,500 people have signed a petition calling for Nolan's resignation due to his lenient sentencing.

    This judge is under intense criticism for handing down fully suspended sentences for serious offences such as possession of thousands of images/videos of child pornography.

    And you're trying to tell us that the sentencing of Doolin is in no way a reaction to that public criticism? That's three years in prison is objectively merited by Doolin's crime of sending six trolling messages a month to his victims, calling them wannabes and self-absorbed narcissists, and by looking up their pictures on the internet?

    Nolan very clearly used this case as an opportunity to answer his critics, which makes the sentence unfair and unjustified, no matter what you think of Doolin's own actions.


    So, the guy is actually guilty of something, but a victim of what you perceive as incorrect sentencing.


  • Options
    #489
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    So, the guy is actually guilty of something, but a victim of what you perceive as incorrect sentencing.

    That about sums it up. If he had been before a different judge, one who wasn't out to set an example of him to answer the judge's numerous critics, he likely would have received a rap on the knuckles and an order not to contact the women again.


  • Options
    #490
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    That's preposterous. His sentence is half the amount of time he harassed those women for, he should count himself lucky. Do the crime, do the time.

    Holy **** how dumb are you.


  • Options
    #491
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    paleoperson wrote: »
    Holy **** how dumb are you.

    says the poster who thinks harassing multiple women for multiple years is a minor thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,501 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    says the poster who thinks harassing multiple women for multiple years is a minor thing.

    And didn't address the stalker continuing while on bail.


  • Options
    #493
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,501 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Currently, more than 15,500 people have signed a petition calling for Nolan's resignation due to his lenient sentencing.

    This judge is under intense criticism for handing down fully suspended sentences for serious offences such as possession of thousands of images/videos of child pornography.

    And you're trying to tell us that the sentencing of Doolin is in no way a reaction to that public criticism? That's three years in prison is objectively merited by Doolin's crime of sending six trolling messages a month to his victims, calling them wannabes and self-absorbed narcissists, and by looking up their pictures on the internet?

    Nolan very clearly used this case as an opportunity to answer his critics, which makes the sentence unfair and unjustified, no matter what you think of Doolin's own actions.

    Public: We want Nolan to give out harsher sentences

    Nolan gives out harsher sentences

    Trolls: no not like that


  • Options
    #494
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Overheal wrote: »
    Public: We want Nolan to give out harsher sentences

    Nolan gives out harsher sentences

    Trolls: no not like that

    Or

    Public: We want Nolan to give out harsher sentences

    Nolan gives out harsher sentences

    Trolls: no, not for something we dont care about.


  • Options
    #495
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    paleoperson wrote: »
    Holy **** how dumb are you.

    He pled guilty to everything he was accused of so why are you so passionately defending him?


  • Options
    #496
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    He pled guilty to everything he was accused of so why are you so passionately defending him?

    Because sentences in a properly functioning judicial system should be fair. Fair not only to the victims of a crime but to the perpetrators. Sentences should be objectively merited and based on precedent -- not based, as in this case, on a judge's desire to answer his thousands of critics.


  • Options
    #497
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Because sentences in a properly functioning judicial system should be fair. Fair not only to the victims of a crime but to the perpetrators. Sentences should be objectively merited and based on precedent -- not based, as in this case, on a judge's desire to answer his thousands of critics.

    the maximum sentence for the offence was 5 years. the judge suspended the last two because he plead guilty. seems fair enough to me.


  • Options
    #498
    Dermot Illogical
    Registered Users Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the maximum sentence for the offence was 5 years. the judge suspended the last two because he plead guilty. seems fair enough to me.

    The maximum is 7.


  • Options
    #499
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Dermot Illogical wrote: »
    The maximum is 7.

    In that case it was even more reasonable. :)


  • Options
    #500
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    paleoperson wrote: »
    He IS the victim.

    Well, there you have it folks.


  • Options
    #501
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    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.

    I disagree with you.

    I don't think Nolan gave this sentence to rehabilitate his reputation but rather as a warning to those that have become very vocal about his sentencing in cases online.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Ulysses Gaze wrote: »
    I disagree with you.

    I don't think Nolan gave this sentence to rehabilitate his reputation but rather as a warning to those that have become very vocal about his sentencing in cases online.

    Fair enough.

    Regardless, I think we both see the connection between this excessively harsh sentence, the online criticisms of Nolan, and the current petition with over 15,500 signatures calling for his resignation. That's a connection that numerous other posters on this thread simply refuse to acknowledge.


  • Options
    #503
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cork-mother-is-jailed-for-six-months-in-harrowing-child-cruelty-case-187e4824-bea9-4dc0-8c70-c07a0aaea213-ds

    6 months for locking up your children - all under 7 - and going on the piss... Not her first offence either.

    What's an appropriate sentence here if 3 years is fair for what this guy did?


  • Options
    #504
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Longer than six months, obviously.

    It still doesn't mean that your hero deserved a lesser sentence. ;)


  • Options
    #505
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    paleoperson wrote: »
    No I wouldn't. It was a direct result of their actions that I felt bad, terrible even sometimes. Does that make them a criminal deserving jail?



    He is a victim after receiving this sentence.



    He didn't contact the women again after being warned, he contacted people connected to them. That's how he was gotten.

    Did they carry on this behaviour for 6 years despite being warned by Gardaí to stop it?


  • Options
    #506
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Faugheen wrote: »
    I think the teacher should have got longer.

    I just don’t see why we’re talking about here. This a thread about an internet stalker, yet you’re using it to fuel your outrage at another case we have a thread for already!

    OP here. This thread is about the disparity of sentencing and uses this case as an a example. The direction some have taken it in reflects on their ideologies rather than an honest discussion in a search for truth. And that goes for the women haters as well as the men haters on here.


  • Options
    #507
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Longer than six months, obviously.

    It still doesn't mean that your hero deserved a lesser sentence. ;)

    He's not my hero. He's some guy with mental health issues that locking up for 3 years is likely to make worse.

    As for the other case, that woman has severe addiction issues. Children should be taken from her and she should be put into rehab on a suspended sentence, not jailed.


  • Options
    #508
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    Two men in court before Nolan for mugging a 73 year old woman. One of them got two and a half years and the other got a suspended sentence.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/men-sentenced-for-mugging-woman-who-won-23000-at-casino-4901397-Nov2019/

    It could have been worse. At least they didn't threaten her on Twitter.

    A suspended sentence, also from Nolan, for threatening to cut off a priests fingers. It's okay though, he didn't threaten him on Twitter either.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/religious-persecution-disorder-courts-suspended-sentence-4898228-Nov2019/


  • Options
    #509
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    To be clear he was not a stalker, he left his home about once every 7 years ,
    he was guilty of harassment .
    Its hard to be a stalker if you are at home 7 days a week.
    a stalker follows people or becomes obsessed with someone and follows them home or to their place of work.


  • Options
    #510
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    riclad wrote: »
    To be clear he was not a stalker, he left his home about once every 7 years ,
    he was guilty of harassment .
    Its hard to be a stalker if you are at home 7 days a week.
    a stalker follows people or becomes obsessed with someone and follows them home or to their place of work.

    How many times does it have to be pointed out that those facts only came to light during the trial and that the women were unaware of those facts when the harassment was actually taking place?

    Please explain how they were to know he hadn’t left his home in 7 years. I’m all ears here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    riclad wrote: »
    To be clear he was not a stalker, he left his home about once every 7 years ,
    he was guilty of harassment .
    Its hard to be a stalker if you are at home 7 days a week.
    a stalker follows people or becomes obsessed with someone and follows them home or to their place of work.

    lucky then that he was only found guilty of harassment


Advertisement