the biggest crime here is that this scumbag ended up financially better off than the person who he wronged in the first place.
There should be a law that states no compensation for anyone in the act of committing a crime.
Some scumbag fell through the rood of our local shop a few years back while robbing it and successfully sued the owner. The upshot was the shop owner would have been much better off had the little runt taken his fill as it cost him significant more due to increased premiums over the next few years than restocking would have.
Jury didn't think that. He got found not guilty by a jury of his peers...
I know if someone broke into my house and threatened my family i'd probably do worse then mow the scumbag down with my car.
I'm delighted with this outcome.
Ah sure that makes them ok so - let them rob respectable hardworking people's homes as much as they like! sure theyre no doubt salt of the earth types who love their mammys.
Most people would think that scumbags of both the tracksuit and pinstripe suit hues should be severely punished.
Personally I would be in favour of the death penalty but thats never going to happen because the country/EU is polluted with excuse makers.
Maybe if a few Anglo bank directors were given the chair, the next batch of lads who wanted to borrow billions they had no hope of getting back, just so they could get their bonuses and commisions would take a more prudent approach....
The fact that the homeowner was in the right until he ran the guy down, by the look of things.
I would beg to differ - they aren't completely different things, they're all criminals who destroy lives, although their methods may differ. Only it seems that it's expected that we should be outaged about one kind, and apathetic about the other. Seeing as this story involves a property developer running a small-time criminal down with his Merc and being applauded for it, it seemed relevant to me. But, like I say, this is for another thread.
And I don't believe the "blocking" story for one second, any more than I'd believe the burglar if he said he'd sleepwalked into the place. If you hit someone with your car, you're at the very least reckless as to whether you do serious injury.
I understand that it's fashionable to hate property developers these days, but how is that in any way relevant?
If I woke up to some scum bag in my house, I guarantee you they would regret it. Your home is the once place that you absolutely, unquestionably should be allowed to feel safe and if someone enters without permission, they should certainly expect to be maimed for it.
I'm not even a violent person. Imagine if I had a temper.
how is he stuck in a perpetual state of no education there is free education in this country and he's been caught 32 times so i assume he's not caught every time so lets say he's caught 33% of the time then he's robbed 100 odd houses.
no one killed him they ran him down with a car to catch him
I can't find any cases of people standing up for the burglar on this thread. Do you seriously think anyone actually thinks he was right to rob houses?
This is not a case where you have to take one side or another.
For example, I think burglary is wrong (who doesn't?) and I think the justice system failed in allowing a repeat offender to be free, and in awarding him such a large amount of damages.
But I also think that the homeowner was wrong to chase after the burglar in his car. That also is a crime, and though he can be somewhat excused due to his emotional state, I believe he should have received a minor punishment, as acquitting him sets a dangerous precedent.
Many people like the idea of citizens violently punishing criminals as it satisfies a primal instinct inside us, and gives us a sense of justice being done.
But I don't want to live in a society where people can mete out violent vigilante justice on the streets, and I think if people who support the homeowner's actions thought about the greater implications of being allowed to attack criminals in public, they'd feel the same way.
Talking about issues like this in a you're-with-us-or-against-us way stifles reasonable debate as it oversimplifies matters but also makes discussion more combative.
TL;DR: Two crimes were committed, two wrongs don't make a right, and the state shouldn't condone vigilantism.
That might be a comforting thought, but it's assuming a distinction between "regular people" and criminals, which is too simple. Any one of us might become a criminal at some point in the future: we can never say for certain that we won't.
Talking about criminals like they're some separate, lower species isn't helpful as it leads to some of the vitriol you can see on threads like this.
Not condoning vandalism means you provide alternative protection for people in terms of policing/prison sentences etc. Since guys like him are allowed to break into people's homes as often as they like without any fear of the law, what do you expect from people living in the homes? When one of these repeat offenders whom the court systems refuse to prosecute comes visiting your home, are you just going to sit there with your valuables laid out at the foot of the bed saying "here, take it all and have a nice cup of tea while you're at it"? I don't like the idea of citizens taking the law into their own hands, but I don't see how you can expect anything else unless you start locking people up when they're caught for their crimes. With all the ire over the homeowner being acquited, has anyone noticed that the burglar still hasn't received a punishment from the State for breaking and entering?
I still don't think public vigilantism is the way to go.
I don't think if someone is being burgled they should lay all their valuables on the floor. Of course not. While I don't recommend that most people take on criminals (I don't think most people would be as good at it as they seem to think), the law does allow one to use reasonable force against an intruder in your home. And I think any jury would be very lenient in terms of how they interpret reasonable force.
And personally, I think you should be allowed to use violence to defend your home and family.
But only inside your home.
Once violence against criminals in public places is acceptable, a very dangerous precedent is set.
Yes, the state failed in allowing this man to repeatedly go free and in not convicting him.
But when the state fails us, we don't take the law into our own hands. That road leads to violent chaos.
We petition the state to do its job better, because even though it's far from perfect, it's much better at policing and running the country than we are.
It's not as exciting as vigilantism, but it's the much saner and safer approach.
Your comment seems somewhat contradictory. You appear to applaud the homeowner for his actions as you say you would do a lot worse to the thief, yet you are delighted that the homeowner was fined 175 grand.
See this I agree with. If the criminal has fled without harming anyone it is very hard to justify hunting them down with the intent to do them damage. Following them to detain them until the police arrive? That makes sense but is probably a little dangerous.
I do think beating seven shades of shíte out of someone who is still in your home is fine though.
Every now and again I log onto boards and find a thread like this, which reminds me why I got the fuck out of Ireland, a complete fucking shithole of a country, flew to the other side of the planet and never looked back. I never find a thread that even starts to make me think that I made the wrong decision.
One thing I will say is that any "scumbag " going up before a jury in Ireland today is not going to win .If that guy had gotten out of the car and cut ya mans head off with a machete after he broke his legs , all the jury will be focusing on is the fact that the burglar was in someones house armed with a screwdriver before the incident.
Its easier to comment on this case from reading about it in the media ..you sit in a jury stand for a couple of days and everything else about the case is passing you by apart from the fact that the guy sitting over there could have possibly broken into your house with your wife and children sleeping alone or you could have been asleep and your husband not present , left to defend yourself from this guy .The guy had been convicted of the offence so this was never in doubt.
Bottom line ..the homeowner was never going to be charged with this so you can rest easy if you find yourself in a situation regarding a burglar .
Does anyone know the insurance company who gave this guy 175k?
I would just be curious what they use as a case on raising people's premiums this year would be when they hand over cash like this....
regardless of the different opinions- most people seem to agree that crime shouldn't pay- if you kill someone and are found guilty - then you don't benefit from the will.
If you rob someone and are hurt in the process- you should not benefit from your crime.
seeing as this case has got such press attention- maybe it is time for people to put pressure to get this law as a starting point...... I don't know what message it gives the scumbags - that they should actively antagonise householders when they break in- as will be more profitable than stealing a few laptops..... what happened to public policy decisions.....
I presume as he received his 175k before this case- that he is not entitled to free legal aid for his council in the case - and will not be in the future???... and any social welfare payments are being stopped.