If this had happened in a shop?

enricoh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How does a man, whom at one point, ran a business and employed 20 people, end up taking people hostage with apparent lethal weapons?



The human condition is an enigma sometimes.

The Celtic tiger calved, no builders paid him what they owed him. He was left owing a fortune, 100 phone calls a day from crowds looking for money and the brain just went on him apparently.
I did a bit of business with him before that n he was a decent bloke to deal with.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Easy to say when it's not you in the shop though.

I wasnt in any of the buildings so Im unsure what your point is. Some buildings are more important than others. Its just reality.

We like to think everything is equal but its not, even people arent.

6o9fv7jpreb180

I would like to think all citizens of the state would get treated the same... not "well a judge and the court were the vicitm, so we deal with those cases more severely".

At the end of the day, if myself and a judge were assaulted in the same way, I believe the person who assaulted the judge would get a harsher sentence. Which is fundamentally wrong IMO.

Calahonda52

Rezident wrote: »

The Irish Family Law System.
1: 80% of divorces are now initiated by the female as she will "win":

2:

• the children
• the house
• the assets
• future earnings
• anything else that is left

No need to work through your problems anymore, just divorce and take everything (if you're female). I can imagine a typical female friend's advice when her friend has marital troubles: 'you know, if you leave him you will get everything'...



Whereas many men just commit suicide, it would appear this man took a different course of action.

Does anyone still labour under the delusion that the Irish Family Law system is not significantly biased against men?

The first piece may be correct but we need evidence for the second one

Treasure Harsh Ammunition

Treasure Harsh Ammunition wrote: »

I would like to think all citizens of the state would get treated the same... not "well a judge and the court were the vicitm, so we deal with those cases more severely".

At the end of the day, if myself and a judge were assaulted in the same way, I believe the person who assaulted the judge would get a harsher sentence. Which is fundamentally wrong IMO.

that depends on if hes attacked because hes a judge. you are failing to see that crimes also carry mitigating circumstances.

a criminal act against an arm of the state is an attack on the state. I realise that wasnt this guys ultimate goal but he was trying to subvert the justice system and that my friend, leads to the collapse of society a lot quicker than attacking the local corner shop.

attacking the leader of the country in an attempt to change his policies is a lot worse than attacking a stranger for no reason. thats reality.

threeball

Judges only tend to care once it hits home. There is a judge in Dublin who was quite happy to let toe rags off with a slapped wrist for breaking into homes until her own home was targetted one night. Now if you come up in front of her you better hope you weren't burgling homes or you're getting the book thrown at you. Another one down in Laois was the same with drink driving until a family member got killed by a drink driver, after that it didn't matter whether you were a few mg over or you drank the bar dry.

McCrack

threeball wrote: »

Judges only tend to care once it hits home. There is a judge in Dublin who was quite happy to let toe rags off with a slapped wrist for breaking into homes until her own home was targetted one night. Now if you come up in front of her you better hope you weren't burgling homes or you're getting the book thrown at you. Another one down in Laois was the same with drink driving until a family member got killed by a drink driver, after that it didn't matter whether you were a few mg over or you drank the bar dry.

This is nonsense, drink driving carries set disqualification periods depending on levels so the judge has no discretion

threeball

threeball wrote: »

Judges only tend to care once it hits home. There is a judge in Dublin who was quite happy to let toe rags off with a slapped wrist for breaking into homes until her own home was targetted one night. Now if you come up in front of her you better hope you weren't burgling homes or you're getting the book thrown at you. Another one down in Laois was the same with drink driving until a family member got killed by a drink driver, after that it didn't matter whether you were a few mg over or you drank the bar dry.

manure. Name the judge

An Ri rua

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Easy to say when it's not you in the shop though.

That's a parochial view, to say the least.

Should they have special legislation for aggrieved parties, as against someone who would intentionally attack a pillar of the state? It's easy for posters here to knock judges. This isn't about a judge protecting a fellow judge. It's as important a ruling as if there was a challenge to the rule of law by our political arm.
Was the judge erring by a year or two? Who knows? Here, I mean. But I'm sure the judge knows. As do his legal peers.
Are fathers abused by the legal process here? Most definitely. But it has no bearing on the required sentencing by the judge. The judge had all the facts. We don't.
He was lucky not to be shot, just as George in Blanchardstown was, for threatening Gardaí. What saved him was his dummy bomb vest. Mental breakdown my arse, I've no doubt he was demented but he took a decision to bear arms and threaten (fake arms being irrelevant). Justice is being served.

Edit: if this had happened in a (cop)shop, the results would likely have been worse for him.