Soldier beats a woman unconscious, gets a great reference from his commanding officer, avoids jail.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122312276#Comment_122312276

This is the correct outlook.

HeidiHeidi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122312515#Comment_122312515

This is such a depressing post, on so many levels.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122312276#Comment_122312276

Yes. spot on. Said it before, awful awful thing to happen to a person is to be physically beaten. This man has no place serving in any responsible "caring" role after what he did.

I told ya

Would make interesting if the Judges' names were included and published in respect of the convicted soldiers still serving.

jonnreeks

The Defence Forces’ Chief of Staff has summoned senior officers to an “unprecedented” meeting on Friday to discuss how the army handles offenders among its ranks.

Is this going to be a men talking about the outcome of an assault on a woman. Don't forget a male army officer gave a support reference while a male retiring judge handed down the suspended sentence!

Does there seem to be a pattern here!

🤔

Feisar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122313416#Comment_122313416

What's their gender got to do with it?

well24

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122312769#Comment_122312769

Agree its a depressing world we live in… But I get the feeling you dont mean it that way, care to explain why it is so depressing to think the way the poster does, none of what was said is untrue, its just the way it is?

How would you address the situation outlined?

miamee

A lot of people are, in my opinion, missing the point as to why this particular case has garnered so much interest from the public, the media and various groups.

This was a horrendous case and the criminal involved should have been sentenced to time in prison, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. It was one let down after another; the injuries inflicted, the lack of intervention by this guys friends until a stranger had to step in, the cowardly running off when he was interrupted, the post on social media the next day, the lies about Natasha starting a physical fight with him so he "had to" react, recanting his lies when CCTV emerged, pleading guilty only for the judge to give him a slap in the wrist. All terrible things but not exclusive to this case as many have pointed out.

People have been getting away with this and more for far too long. The difference here is that the victim has stood up for herself. Some victims might express their disappointment at a sentence but that's it, they no doubt want to get on with their lives and put it all behind them. No judgement here, I'd probably do the same myself. Natasha is not willing to slip off into anonymity to deal with this issue quietly though, she is angry, she is loud and she is looking for justice and change and I think this is the only reason why the media are all over it this time. Cynical as it is, she is grabbing the attention of people and the media will cling on to that for all it's worth. I really hope that she can effect some change, time will tell.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122313981#Comment_122313981

Now who’s getting all emotional. The poster made valid points and explained their rationale.

She is currently in the public eye because she chose to be there, and people will have different opinions.

hoodie6029

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122312195#Comment_122312195

An abusive and manipulative person can take control of another person extremely quickly. How susceptible the victim was to it (or was not, you are making unsupported assumptions about this case) is irrelevant to the crime committed. Assault, burglary, coercive control etc etc are displayed in this case. You are implying (based on nothing at all in the case) that because the victim made it easy for him, his culpability is much less than it should be. You might as well throw all criminal law out the window then if that is how you think it should operate. People could rob grannies with impunity then. ‘But Judge, it was so easy, I’m a 6 foot 8 boxer!’
‘Dismissed’

miamee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122313960#Comment_122313960

But to break it down to very basics, this guy was shouting at someone, i.e. using his voice and words to bother someone. She intervened with her own voice to divert his attention and ask him to stop. The natural assumption would be that the risk involved is that he would then direct his verbal assault at her and she didn't care if he shouted at her. How was she to know he would be so injured and incensed by a few words that he would break out the fists? It's a huge escalation. And to pre-empt the inevitable reply 'she didn't know how he would react so she should have stayed away' and if she's sat down to have a think about it maybe she would have but it was genuine reflex.

• See someone shouting abuse
• Say "Hey leave it out will you" or something to that effect
• Find yourself being beaten to a pulp

Anyone saying she should have known that would be the result is being disingenuous, imo.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122314351#Comment_122314351

I am not saying she should have known she'd be beaten up for it. It's very rare a man would resort to beating a woman up (strangers) for admonishing him

Far more likely a man verbally tells her to eff off. What happened to Natsaha is a very rare occurrence. Males intervening run a far greater risk of being physically beaten.

But sadly, in this case, Natasha met a man who was that bit nastier, as he chose to beat up on a woman (who he had to know was much weaker).

The key point Briany is making, and I agree with, is the inherent risk involved when intervening in aggro. It of course is much more a risk when men intervene, because most most men won't turn and beat up a smaller and weaker woman, but plenty will beat up on men who intervene

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122314266#Comment_122314266

She's currently in the public eye because she took the option of going public about the suspension of the sentence given to the person who pleaded guilty to launching a criminal assault on her two years ago on Limerick's streets, and having gone to court to provide evidence at the trial of that person responsible for the assault on her, only to hear that the person who had entered a guilty plea to the charges when he knew the strength of the evidence against him, throwing himself on the mercy of the judge and avoiding a jury trial was then released from custody after the judge hearing the case suspended the jail sentence he had decided was proper and fit for the criminal offence committed.

The criminal is now back out on the same streets again that she has to use. Whatever about people having different opinions about her going public on the outcome of the trial, there's no getting away from that fact. Had the victim not gone public about the suspension of the jail sentence given to the criminal concerned, I doubt if there would have been much public awareness of the assault, the trial and the judges two decisions: the jail sentence and the follow-on suspension of it. Faulting her for going public to ensure people are aware of what happened has a faulty foundation.

Babyreignbow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122313876#Comment_122313876

she is angry, she is loud and she is looking for justice and change and I think this is the only reason why the media are all over it this time. Cynical as it is, she is grabbing the attention of people and the media will cling on to that for all it's worth. I really hope that she can effect some change, time will tell.

I'm taken aback at the speed with which the Government have responded and the action that has been taken. So we now know that there are 68 serving members who been convicted, or are currently before the civil courts, on a range of criminal offences including public order, drink driving, drugs offences, physical assault and sexual offences. The pressure is on the DF to have them removed and with the culmination of the establishment of a tribunal into allegation of harrassment and abuse in the forces, I'd say Natasha's experience and voice has been a very effective catalyst for change.

In addition, the voices of several other women were heard yesterday in a campaign to address the use of therapy notes as evidence in rape trials. The minister for justice took to request an immediate review to ensure that notes are no longer admissible as evidence from next year. Natasha's criticism of the Justice system and it's treatment of victims in the courts has had far ranging consequences.

The standing ovation and rounds of applause are of incredible significance in a country that is tired of being oppressed. From Governement ministers houses to abuse victims in court rooms, everyone very clearly has stated that enough is enough and we are seeing these issues being addressed rapdily to effect change.

BaywatchHQ

He still probably gets more women than this forum combined. Women will still date him in the future even if they they know of his violent past.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122314735#Comment_122314735

I don’t think anyone is blaming her for going public. Personally it’s the media coverage and the victim glorification and virtue signalling that irks me. You can see the same phenomenon on this thread.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122314326#Comment_122314326

Thank you, I am well aware how coercive control works. Of course it’s possible to establish control within 8 weeks but this should be the time during which the foundation is build, and not for escalation. The fact that both parties reached escalation point so quickly tells you that there were impulse control and boundary issues at play from the start. I am not judging btw.

hoodie6029

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122314996#Comment_122314996

Based on your posts, I don’t think you understand what a crime is beyond someone stealing a lollipop from a shop.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122314266#Comment_122314266

Not emotional at all, I'm just pointing out posters who seem to be a tad annoyed by a woman coming forward about the courts atrocious handling of a violent assault.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122313960#Comment_122313960

I don’t agree: we can be frank about what it is to see someone being abused for no reason in public and to walk on by. It’s cowardly. And that’s ok. It’s not illegal to be a coward. But let’s not lie about it to make cowards feel better about themselves. There are consequences for all of society if everyone only ever thinks of themselves.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315101#Comment_122315101

Yes, but are you now implying that this applies to any scenario? No matter how volatile and dangerous it is?

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315077#Comment_122315077

Personally I think Natasha pointing out how she was treated by the justice system that day was brilliant. Sticking it to that judge. In other words, telling him he did not beat her.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315124#Comment_122315124

Of course not. There are also many situations where it would be counterproductive to “have a go”. But as another poster pointed out, it was not (or would not have seemed to be) a massive risk to just politely ask someone to leave it out.

Presenting “walking on by” as the norm means it was even more reckless for the guy who intervened - so should he also be told he wasn’t a hero but was a dangerous fool?

As I said before: who wants to live in that kind of society?

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315193#Comment_122315193

I mentioned that. Very unlikely men turn on women and beat them because a woman verbally asked them to stop doing something.

But a far greater risk when men verbally intervene. You absolutely need to factor in the genders.

Not sure if you’re a parent, but can you really say you’d agree with (even encourage) your children to call out bad behaviour against someone aggressive, volatile (physically imposing).

Whatever about your daughter(s) avoiding assault risks, your son(s) would likely face far greater risk.

Ten of Swords

@sekiro threadbanned

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122315228#Comment_122315228

I am a parent of young adults. I haven’t told them what to do either way. Because it’s not something you can instruct someone about in theory - it depends on their decision in the moment and I wouldn’t want them to make such a decision based on what they thought I would want them to do.

Although it occurs to me that they have all done some level of self defence/martial arts training as teens. Because they wanted to, not because we told them to.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122311759#Comment_122311759

On the contrary, in the moral confusion which has engulfed us, it is essential that we speak precisely and frankly about the moral failings which this scandal has revealed. There are times when speaking sensitively, not hurting anyone's feelings, is a moral betrayal. Using a weasel-word like "streetsmart" is designed to justify cowardice on the grounds of self-preservation which is, of course, the usual motive for cowardice.

I do not use abusive language and I did not accuse any poster of cynicism or inaction. My words referred clearly and specifically to those who stood by while a woman was beaten unconscious on the main thoroughfare in Limerick City. I specifically acknowledged the problem that anyone getting involved risked being beaten like Natasha O'Brien and that the courts would fail them as badly. But that is a separate point and does not absolve their inaction.

You are only adding to the moral confusion by equating the attack on Natasha with the situations mentioned by Geoff Thomas e.g. the smoker in a non-smoking area or the guy in a row with his girlfriend. We would be an amoral society i.e. there would be no line between right and wrong, if Irish people now think - "I wouldn't tell some guy to stop smoking in a non-smoking area and I wouldn't intervene in a dispute between him and his girlfriend so I won't do anything when he viciously beats a woman unconscious for daring to ask him to stop his homophobic abuse".

I listed a series of issues in an earlier post which this country should, but probably won't, address properly because the media/politicians will deflect attention from them or push phoney solutions.

• the lack of prison spaces and the failure of all alternative criminal sanctions,
• a flawed system of "character references" which serves no purpose other than to deceive the Judge into a falsely positive impression of the perpetrator.
• A set of military regulations which resulted in Crotty's commanding officer giving evidence in support of Crotty, leading to the fully-suspended sentence,
• A blind obedience to regulations by the Commanding officer who ignored the impending battle i.e. the Tribunal of Inquiry (a mortal sin for any Army, like the French military in 1940) 
• Widespread indiscipline in our military, especially among young recruits who never experienced disipline at home or at school,
• a recruitment crisis so profound that even Crotty is wanted as a soldier and our Navy is tied up in harbour

There is another, more fundamental, lesson. Society's first task is to control violence by giving a monopoly of violence to the State i.e. the police, the military and the criminal justice system. We draw a veil over this monopoly but we are fools if we deny it. In consequence, if women are not safe on our streets, our police/criminal justice system have failed.

This case is exceptional because all elements of the monopoly are engaged - the Defence Forces as well as the Gardai and the criminal justice system. This case therefore highlights an important consequence if our society does not punish such violence. Our public places will be dominated not by the strong (who can have moral principles and who would protect us from external enemies) but by bullies (who are egotists and who will run away when the enemy threatens).

The media say Crotty has no place in our defence forces because he is a violent male. That is a total misunderstanding. Every military needs men capable of extreme violence but they must be absolutely disciplined and they must not be cowards. His commanding officer not only failed to recognise these elementary requirements, he blindly followed what he (wrongly, it seems now) believed were the applicable regulations although the effect of his evidence was to allow Crotty to stay in the Army (no one is fooled by the rush now to defenestrate Crotty.)

Caquas

The Chief of Staff gives his marching orders to the top brass. No double-talk, deflection or whinging like we see got here from those who sought to minimise or even justify the role of the Defence Forces in this case.

But cultural change is difficult especially when the culture is deep-rooted. The Tribunal will shine a bright light into dark corners.

https://x.com/defenceforces/status/1806729884632236131?s=61&t=5yJYlU_Z5hOpPzF4_D53ZA

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122317683#Comment_122317683

Peter Ward SC ? wasn't he involved in the Ammi Burke unfair dismissal case?

So who appointed him?

Edit;

I see it was  Micheál Martin 

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122317948#Comment_122317948

Yes, a top barrister in HR cases.

The kind of lawyer hired by a top law firm when they are dragged into the High Court by their worst nightmare- Ammi Burke.