A sad day....

murphaph

The first of four IRA men convicted for the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was released from prison today.

O'Neill, from Patrickswell, Co Limerick, was jailed in 1999 for his role in the manslaughter of Det Gda McCabe, who was shot dead during a raid on a post office in Adare, Co Limerick, on June 7th 1996.

He was involved in the preparation of the raid but did not fire the fatal shots.

Jeremiah Sheehy, Pearse McAuley and Kevin Walsh, who were also convicted of the manslaughter of the garda, are likely to be released within the next two years.

Despite repeated attempts to release the men under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, they faced fierce resistance from the officer's widow, Ann McCabe, Garda representative bodies and politicians on both the Government and Opposition benches.

Earlier this year, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern defended O'Neill's release, saying that the Prison Service had no legal authority to detain him beyond that date.

Det Garda McCabe's brother-in-law, Pat Kearney, said the family would ignore the man's release.

Obviously from the thread title I am not best pleased that any of these animals see the light of day. I'll not shed a tear if this individual is run over by a bus as he steps out the prison gates.

smashey

Such is the justice system.

Zambia

People like this and worse are released daily , when your time is done your time is done.

Liam Byrne

Odd, isn't it, that "he was involved in the preparation [i.e. planning] of the raid", but the conviction was manslaugher (i.e. an unplanned killing).

Anyways, we should at least be glad that Bertie wasn't allowed do his u-turn just before the Northern Bank Robbery and this scum was off the streets for at least the minimum amount of time required.

And Zambia is right; the sentencing in this country is a joke on lots of crimes, and this one was no different. The time in prison was apparently a joke, with these guys having more perks than an average, non-convict, honest Joe on minimum wage, although you've got to bear in mind that they had to put up with regular visits and photo shoots from their supporters - Gerry Adams & Co.

Where I'd differ with Zambia is that there aren't many people worse than those who shoot innocent people and law enforcement.

I'm far from happy that he's out either - IMHO, he should have been hung for attempted murder of a cop - but it at least seems like everything that could be done was done to the letter of the law; just a pity he and his buddies didn't consider doing the same.

Judt

You can only keep them so long as they are sentenced. Still, we live in a country where you can be out in three years for raping somebody - after having the sentence suspended in the first place. The government is going a ways to giving tougher sentences, but judges won't use them.

Time Magazine

You can't portion all the blame on the judges. Most of it is the fault of the government. Absolute disgrace.

Am I the only person who thinks these types of guys shouldn't be let out for at least 15 years from sentencing? That murder should actually result in a 25 years to life sentence?

Villain

TBH I'd probably be better off not posting on this topic as every time I do people simply think I'm a Sinn Fein or IRA supporter. The fact is O'Neill has served the same time as any criminal would have for the same sentence.

The fact is these criminal's should have been released under the terms of the GFA the same way the person who was convicted of the murder of James Morgan was released and I don't remember anyone posting here the day he was released.

Just to make it clear I don't support the IRA or these criminal's the killing Garda McCabe was wrong and criminal, I'm simply posting the other side of this story.

Time Magazine

irish1 wrote:

The fact is O'Neill has served the same time as any criminal would have for the same sentence.

It's so much more complicated than that and you know it. It's not that long ago you could have been put to death for murdering a member of the force.

Answer one question: how many bullets were fired at the incident?

Zambia

If Gerry McCabe was an RUC officer he would have probably got out under the GFA. Which would also have been wrong.

Time Magazine

irish1 wrote:

The fact is O'Neill has served the same time as any criminal would have for the same sentence.

It is so much more complicated than that and you bloody well know it. How the fuck ANYONE can claim firing 14 rounds from an AK-47 at Gardai before they had the opportunity to raise their rifles is not cold-blooded murder I do not know. It is an absolute disgrace that any of this filthy IRA scum, who had the gall to appear with green ribbons for the release of Republican prisoners in court, should be let out before at least twenty years has been served I do not know.

They're scum. Absolute scum. Manslaughter my hole.

RalphCifaretto

he should have been hung for attempted murder of a cop

Hung from what? A big hook?:rolleyes:

Villain

Ibid wrote:

It is so much more complicated than that and you bloody well know it. How the fuck ANYONE can claim firing 14 rounds from an AK-47 at Gardai before they had the opportunity to raise their rifles is not cold-blooded murder I do not know. It is an absolute disgrace that any of this filthy IRA scum, who had the gall to appear with green ribbons for the release of Republican prisoners in court, should be let out before at least twenty years has been served I do not know.

They're scum. Absolute scum. Manslaughter my hole.

I'm dealing with facts and not emotion, the fact is the man was convicted of Manslaughter in an Irish Court of law, you can argue that was wrong but it won't change the fact.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

I'm dealing with facts and not emotion, the fact is the man was convicted of Manslaughter in an Irish Court of law, you can argue that was wrong but it won't change the fact.

Lol
The Sinn Féin colours are strong in this post Pedwan.

aidan24326

The sentences handed out in this country are a joke.

Sure, he's served his time as it was handed down, but that doesn't change the fact that the sentence was way wrong to begin with.

Like ibid said, I fail to understand how spraying a guy with bullets from a powerful military rifle can possibly be manslaughter. It is 100% murder. Commit the same crime in the US and you'd go down for murder of a cop, guaranteed life sentence without parole. You aint getting out.

Here you can murder somebody (in this case a detective) in cold blood and you serve 8 years. Crazy. Those men should have got an absolute minimum sentence of 20 years, with no chance of release before that and the likelihood they'd serve 25+.

EDIT: what sickens me most of all is that these men, and those who would support them, like to portray themselves as representing some sort of cause, or even as representing Irish people in general. Well they don't speak for me or any other decent Irish person. They are thugs. Simple as that. That they are thugs with a Bobby Sands tattoo and a direct line to Gerry Adams doesn't alter the fact that they're still brutal thugs who in fact broke one of the IRA's own golden rules which is do not shoot at members of the Irish police or defence forces.

Zambia

No not really it is a fact he was a criminal and served his time according to law. Thats all I get from Irish1 's post. In fact he even stated he was not SF something someone who supported them tends not to do.

Rock Climber

Yeah but we read a lot of posts over longer years than you have been posting here zambia and most of them on subjects like this are "oh I don't support them but"...[insert apologism here] which was the basis of my last comment.

Just saying I see it for what it is,at least its consistent I suppose.

Villain

Rock Climber wrote:

Lol
The Sinn Féin colours are strong in this post Pedwan

I take it you mean Padawan? although I'm not really a fan of Star Wars and I'm also no aprentice to any Jedi Knight or even Gerry Adams as I think thats what you were trying to imply.

Rock Climber wrote:

Yeah but we read a lot of posts over longer years than you have been posting here zambia and most of them on subjects like this are "oh I don't support them but"...[insert apologism here] which was the basis of my last comment.

Just saying I see it for what it is,at least its consistent I suppose.

Have a read of every post I have made and find me one where I have said I support the IRA or the men convicted of garda McCabes killing?

TBH I couldn't care less what you or Tristrame think you know about what I do or don't support, I'm a well educated person who doesn't simply go along with the usual opinion I listen to and read the facts and then make my own opinon. For whats it worth I don't support the IRA and I think these men are criminal's but rather than just look at this case in isolation I have looked at simalar cases and posted facts.

Sand

Ah well, heres to O'Neills future career in politics. He has all the qualifications neccessary for a long and successful career as a Sinn Fein TD.

Oh and btw - thanks for the laugh Irish1. Not a SFIRA supporter.... Classic material man, keep it coming.

Zambia

Rock Climber wrote:

Yeah but we read a lot of posts over longer years than you have been posting here zambia and most of them on subjects like this are "oh I don't support them but"...[insert apologism here] which was the basis of my last comment.

Yes but I see no SF support in what he posted this thread. I see your naming him as in the SF camp as wrong.

His piont was pretty much simialar to my one he was caught convicted and sentenced his time is done. He is also right on the GFA piont that there are scumbags walking around up North that have shot soldiers & Police officers in worse circumstances and are free under the GFA.

Example (http://www.ruc.police.uk/press/1997/june/lurgan.htm)

Constable Roland John Graham, 34 years and his collegue David Andrew Johnston, 30 years, a Full Time Reserve officer, were doing a community beat patrol of Church Walk, Lurgan when two people ran up behind them and callously shot them in the back of the head at close range shortly before 12 noon on Monday 16 June 1997

And the killers of all these officers are out and about by now to under the GFA or have simply served there time.
http://www.wewillrememberthem.co.uk/niruc.htm

RTE.JULY.2000 wrote:

Among those granted freedom today are some of the North's most notorious Republican prisoners, including Brighton bomber Patrick Magee; Sean Kelly, who was convicted for his part in the Shankill bombing in 1993 that killed nine Protestants; IRA man, Thomas Begley; Docklands bomber, James McArdle, and those convicted of the murder of Lance bombadier, Stephen Restorick, the last British soldier to be killed in the North. Also due for release is leading Loyalist, Torrens Knight, convicted of a total of 12 murders, including the those at the Rising Sun bar in Greysteel in October 1993.

Source
http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0728/prisoners.html

So while your indignation is admirable and IMO correct there have been as bitter or worse pills to swallow by Northern familys. We have a stable peace now and thats the price that was paid for it.

Oh and if anyone can prove irish1 is a SF supporter well then there please feel free to post your evidence cause I have just had a cursory glance at his posts and all I found was a few posts asking for a level headed approach to the subject of SF or the IRA. Sorry irish1 I am sure you can handle your own defence from now on.

RalphCifaretto

So what if he is an SF supporter?? That doesn't limit his ability to engage in rational discussion.

Sand

Yes but I see no SF support in what he posted this thread. I see your naming him as in the SF camp as wrong.

Having dealt with him on many threads over the years, I find it laughable when he denies he supports SFIRA. Typical, but still laughable.

So what if he is an SF supporter??

So nothing actually, its just weird that he mirrors SFIRA policy/Gerry Adams views on every subject then acts insulted when hes identified as supporting SFIRA. Either way, its not the subject of the thread.

So while your indignation is admirable and IMO correct there have been as bitter or worse pills to swallow by Northern familys. We have a stable peace now and thats the price that was paid for it.

True, But I havent noticed the families of victims in the North throwing a celebration for the release of their loved ones murderers, nor cheerleading their election campaigns either.

The release of these men wasnt going to be greeted happily by anyone - other than by SFIRA who have been campaigning for years to get them out. This case has more attention - rightly or wrongly - because the victims widow was forced to campaign for justice and embarrassed the Irish government into not selling out to Adams.

Villain

Sand wrote:

Oh and btw - thanks for the laugh Irish1. Not a SFIRA supporter.... Classic material man, keep it coming.

LOL believe what you want to believe Sand, I know what I believe and people can read my posts and make their own mind up, btw show me ONE post where I have said I support the IRA go on just one Sand, I challenge you to find one.

A Dub in Glasgo

I don't get this?

A person served a sentence that was handed down to him by the Irish state. The Irish state cannot keep him in prison any longer as that would be illegal. We have a poster on the politics forum starting a thread saying he prefers if this guy would not see the light of day and it would not be a bad thing if the person was killed or injured by a bus!!!

Such an insightful thread

Villain

Sand wrote:

Having dealt with him on many threads over the years, I find it laughable when he denies he supports SFIRA. Typical, but still laughable.



So nothing actually, its just weird that he mirrors SFIRA policy/Gerry Adams views on every subject then acts insulted when hes identified as supporting SFIRA. Either way, its not the subject of the thread.

I have posted on many topics here and I can assure you I don't mirror Gerry Adams views on every single one of them, I only posted last week that I didn't want to see Sinn Fein in government after the election because they don't have the experience.

Start another thread if this one isn't suited, but I challenge you to show everyone that I support the IRA or that I mirror Gerry Adams views on every subject.

Rock Climber

Thats right shur didn't Gerry Adams condemn the killing of Gerry McCabe this morning on pat kenny.
He was trying to say he'd condemned it before but Anne McCabe rang in to say this was the first time.Sincere? In the same breath he said the killers,his friends and martin feris's best friends should be out...

Oh and wait for it Angus o snodaigh wants the special branch abolished and those in it out on the beat and in the traffic corp etc... he says he wants an end to their political policing...

Villain

That the only reply you have to my post Rock Climber?

Sand

I have posted on many topics here and I can assure you I don't mirror Gerry Adams views on every single one of them, I only posted last week that I didn't want to see Sinn Fein in government after the election because they don't have the experience.

Start another thread if this one isn't suited, but I challenge you to show everyone that I support the IRA or that I mirror Gerry Adams views on every subject.

Cant be bothered really. Would it change anything? Would I win the internet?

Lets face it. The most controversial difference of opinion you can find is that you dont want them in government after this election because you think theyre inexperienced? I take it all back, clearly you have a major axe to grind with SFIRA on a whole host of policy issues.

Villain

Sand wrote:

Cant be bothered really. Would it change anything? Would I win the internet?

Lets face it. The most controversial difference of opinion you can find is that you dont want them in government after this election because you think theyre inexperienced? I take it all back, clearly you have a major axe to grind with SFIRA on a whole host of policy issues.

Can't be bothered or simply can't backup your claim? I think I already know the answer tbh.

One thing I don't do is make sweeping remarks about a poster and then fail to back them up, just looks bad doesn't it?

Attack the post not the poster?

Rock Climber

In fairness irish1,I remember many posts here where you were going yay for sinn Féin in terms of being quick to laud how many seats they were going to get at elections and oozing delight.
I've also seen what looks to me like a veiled pretence of apologism covered with a bit of oh I don't support them but but but...etc

Anyone thats been reading this forum for a few years will get a feel for what kind of post to expect on certain topics from the regulars.

Now lets get back on topic.

Villain

Rock Climber wrote:

In fairness irish1,I remember many posts here where you were going yay for sinn Féin in terms of being quick to laud how many seats they were going to get at elections and oozing delight.
I've also seen what looks to me like a veiled pretence of apologism covered with a bit of oh I don't support them but but but...etc

Anyone thats been reading this forum for a few years will get a feel for what kind of post to expect on certain topics from the regulars.

Now lets get back on topic.

I never said I don't support Sinn Fein on some policies, but thats not what Sand has accused me of I think I am entitled to reply to that, I don't want to drag this off topic but you and Sand are trying to tell me what I believe without proof.

Will you at least admit that in relation to this thread topic I have always said I condemned the killing of Garda McCabe and said that those found guilty are criminals and I don't support the IRA?

Rosita

Liam Byrne wrote:

Odd, isn't it, that "he was involved in the preparation [i.e. planning] of the raid", but the conviction was manslaugher (i.e. an unplanned killing).

It's not odd. It is quite clear. According to the court decision the raid was planned by this man but the killing wasn't. One happened as a result of the other but wasn't directly planned, hence the manslaughter verdict.

Rosita

aidan24326 wrote:

The sentences handed out in this country are a joke.

Sure, he's served his time as it was handed down, but that doesn't change the fact that the sentence was way wrong to begin with.

Like ibid said, I fail to understand how spraying a guy with bullets from a powerful military rifle can possibly be manslaughter. It is 100% murder. Commit the same crime in the US and you'd go down for murder of a cop, guaranteed life sentence without parole. You aint getting out.

Here you can murder somebody (in this case a detective) in cold blood and you serve 8 years. Crazy. Those men should have got an absolute minimum sentence of 20 years, with no chance of release before that and the likelihood they'd serve 25+.

EDIT: what sickens me most of all is that these men, and those who would support them, like to portray themselves as representing some sort of cause, or even as representing Irish people in general. Well they don't speak for me or any other decent Irish person. They are thugs. Simple as that. That they are thugs with a Bobby Sands tattoo and a direct line to Gerry Adams doesn't alter the fact that they're still brutal thugs who in fact broke one of the IRA's own golden rules which is do not shoot at members of the Irish police or defence forces.

I think you need a stint of jury service. There is something more cerebral that "they are thugs" required to nail down a murder charge. It is easy to say that something is 100% murder when you are on a chatboard without seeing the evidence and hearing the arguments but proving it in court when the pesky evidence and inconvenient arguments are in play is quite a different thing.

What happens in the "don't fcuk with us" U.S. is irrelevant. Though one assumes evidence is also required before the chair is plugged in.

Anyway while these people may have served only 8 years, it is 8 years more than Frog Ward's killer so be thankful that your sense of vengeance is even partly satisfied. All lives are equal, but some it seems are more equal than others.

The IRA is entitled to say that it represents a cause. Every organisation would claim that. I am not aware that they have ever claimed to represent Irish people in general. Not sure where you get that from. After 1970 the Provos didn't represent all the IRA itself never mind the entire Irish people.

Rock Climber

@ irish1

You can express whatever opinion you want,I dont mind,that bit is actually on topic.The sincerity of it to my eyes anyway will always be diluted given the perception I have from your pro sinn fein posts.

That said

No one other than Sinn Féin are believing the sinn féin and the IRA are separate crap.It's laughable that we are expected to do so.
I have my own mind and it's bull.
Whats important is the new non violent direction and the settlement up north.

What you guys are going to have to get used to,is what I said in another thread and that is,it's going to take a few elections down here before the dust settles and the majority of people have less of a memory of the recent activities of the IRA.By then SF will have changed a few more of their policies probably into the mainstream.

Liam Byrne

Rosita wrote:

It's not odd. It is quite clear. According to the court decision the raid was planned by this man but the killing wasn't. One happened as a result of the other but wasn't directly planned, hence the manslaughter verdict.

Don't want to go in to it here, as it was discussed at length elsewhere, but if you plan on running around the streets with loaded automatics, then you should be 100% responsible if someone gets shot.

The only exception should be law enforcement officers, who are entitled to have them.

And there were also ****loads of other factors in that decision, including the intimidation of witnesses; just because a court has to decide that any conviction is better than none doesn't make it 100% right.

But all that has been discussed on other threads and ended up being dragged downhill, so lets keep this thread on-topic.

As for the laughable "political policing" remark, O'Snodaigh deserves all the derision he can get for that one.....if individuals were being followed and targetted unfairly, then it's "political policing"; if, however, they're being followed because there's a damn good chance that they'll commit an actual crime, then it's in the best interest of society that they're followed.

And guess what! The thugs proved them right! Surprise, surprise!

As I said above, it's disgusting when certain individuals are let off with light or suspended sentences - be they terrorists or rapists from Clare or wherever. But this individual did serve his time (albeit too short in a lot of people's minds).

Still, that doesn't mean we have to forgive and forget; there are plenty of paedophiles and rapists and other thugs who've finished their sentences too and I still think they are scum - some debts to society cannot be repaid by simply locking people up with their Playstations and plasma TVs and letting their buddies come visit.

Liam Byrne

Rosita wrote:

Anyway while these people may have served only 8 years, it is 8 years more than Frog Ward's killer so be thankful that your sense of vengeance is even partly satisfied. All lives are equal, but some it seems are more equal than others.

Damn right they are! The two scenarios that you are attempting to compare are polar opposites! :mad:

If the IRA guy - i.e. the guy doing the robbing and shooting - i.e. the criminal activity had been the one shot and killed, then the two scenarios would have been comparable and I would hope that the outcome would have been the same - i.e. self defence against a known criminal.

But in this case it was the innocent guy - worse still, the guy doing his job protecting yours and my money from thugs - that was shot - by one of those thugs.

If you want to compare cases, find a different one! :mad:

The IRA is entitled to say that it represents a cause.

And what cause might that be, exactly, considering that this was an authorised/sanctioned, no, hang on, unsanctioned, no, hang on again, sanctioned now that criminals are being released, etc, etc operation ?

Even Gerry Adams doesn't seem to know, so that's not relevant to this thread either. But I will say this: I can represent a million causes, but I AM NOT ENTITLED TO KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON OR A GARDA BECAUSE OF THEM.

What part of that sentence is difficult for SF & IRA to comprehend ?

Rock Climber

No discussion of the nally case here please.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

I have my own mind and it's bull.

:eek: :eek:

Rock Climber

heh I might spar with you here Adig but you've made me giggle,thanks

Rosita

Liam Byrne wrote:

Don't want to go in to it here, as it was discussed at length elsewhere, but if you plan on running around the streets with loaded automatics, then you should be 100% responsible if someone gets shot.

What should be the case is a different matter and that's down to subjective opinion. Different standards apply in court that in general discussion which in the broader scheme of things is just as well.

Colonel Sanders

Bottom line is he served his sentence and has a legal right to walk free. There is also a major argument that he and the other members of the adare gang should be out long ago under the GFA.

Has justice been done? Did the punishment fit the crime? IMO, no. If it was up to me I'd let him rot in prison for the rest of his life, unfortunately its not up to me.

Liam Byrne

Rosita wrote:

What should be the case is a different matter and that's down to subjective opinion. Different standards apply in court that in general discussion which in the broader scheme of things is just as well.

Interesting that you didn't reply to anything else that I'd said, but unfortunately, yes, what should apply and what does apply are two different things.

That doesn't mean that we can't voice an opinion on whether the courts get it right; even as we speak, there's a concerted campaign to have mandatory sentences for rape because there's a general consensus that the current sentencing is pathetic.

The same applies to cases like this, and hopefully the law will be changed in both areas so that any thugs waving guns are dealt with more severely.

I'm with Col Saunders - this guy should count himself lucky that (a) one of the Gardai didn't do us all a favour by shooting first and (b) that the capital murder in the statute books for killing a Guard has been discontinued; if karma and natural justice prevailed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Whether the guy will see that and repent/change his ways is another matter. I hope he does.....

Rosita

Liam Byrne wrote:

Damn right they are! The two scenarios that you are attempting to compare are polar opposites! :mad:

If the IRA guy - i.e. the guy doing the robbing and shooting - i.e. the criminal activity had been the one shot and killed, then the two scenarios would have been comparable and I would hope that the outcome would have been the same - i.e. self defence against a known criminal.

But in this case it was the innocent guy - worse still, the guy doing his job protecting yours and my money from thugs - that was shot - by one of those thugs.

If you want to compare cases, find a different one! :mad:
QUOTE]

I did not compare cases. I compared sentences and the value of life. But looking briefly at the cases, two men are dead and two families are without a father. Hardly "polar opposites".............until you look at the sentences.

And last time I heard walking into somebody's yard, as Mr.Ward did, is not a crime. No court in the country would hold that it is either. Strange that you deem it to be one and also imply that the rule of law does not protect someone who might be deemed to be in the process of breaking the law themselves. No court would agree with that either.

Whether a person is perceived to be innocent or not they are protected by the law. There seems to be a fluid interpretation of the value of life here depending on political perspectives. But this idea that because somebody has "form" that they are fair game has not held currency since the days of the Wild West.

As per the moderator I won't mention the Nally case again, though for the purposes of comparison I would argue that there is validity in mentioning it as it exposes the ambiguous attitude to killing and the law among some people.

Rosita

Liam Byrne wrote:

Interesting that you didn't reply to anything else that I'd said, but unfortunately, yes, what should apply and what does apply are two different things.

The reason I didn't reply to anything else is that it was irrelevant to the point I was making. I am simply arguing that the court and the barstool operate different levels of proof, partiality, and legal expertise.

I have no interest in getting sucked into a tangential argument about what some Sinn Féin guy said. I am simply arguing the legal merits of the matter. I'll leave the politcial point-scoring to others.

Botany Bay

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I don't get this?

A person served a sentence that was handed down to him by the Irish state. The Irish state cannot keep him in prison any longer as that would be illegal. We have a poster on the politics forum starting a thread saying he prefers if this guy would not see the light of day and it would not be a bad thing if the person was killed or injured by a bus!!!

Such an insightful thread

Indeed the OP iv'e noticed, frequents certain Loyalist forums were the level of glorification of murder knows no bounds. I didn't see him pick his fellow posters there up on their moral bankruptcy, yet right as rain here he is posting about an IRA murderer with full bravado and gusto to match. Stange, conflicting levels of moral outrage he shows, almost empathetic with Loyalist terrorist supporters yet loathsome of republican terrorists.

Insightful indeed!!

Liam Byrne

Rosita wrote:

Hardly "polar opposites".............until you look at the sentences.

Very much polar opposites if you look at who lived and who died. There are lots of things I could refer to, but to keep it on-topic, as per the moderator's reasonable request, I'll point out that waving guns around on a main street in order to steal money IS a crime (and again, that's assuming that that is the full story and the actual purpose of the events that day, which was also debatable since it appeared that no attempt was made to actually steal money).

Strange that you deem it to be one and also imply that the rule of law does not protect someone who might be deemed to be in the process of breaking the law themselves. No court would agree with that either.

That in itself is unfortunate, but it appears to be changing if you look at the proposed legislation whereby householders will get more rights to protect themselves and their property against armed, theiving scumbags. I would also argue that a household without a "parent" who thinks it's OK to do things like armed robbery is a household that's better off.....

There seems to be a fluid interpretation of the value of life here depending on political perspectives. But this idea that because somebody has "form" that they are fair game has not held currency since the days of the Wild West.

For the record, I have absolutely no "political perspective" driving the fluidity, and the other post implying that the OP in this discussion is being two-faced in this regard is not something I condone or agree with.

Where I WILL admit and advocate some fluidity is whether the person involved is breaking the law and/or putting an innocent person at risk - if they didn't decide to break the law, there would be no issue, so therefore they have at least some culpability. The innocent person should not be put in a position to make a reactionary decision on what's legal and what's not.

I will uphold and respect anybody's value of life or right to representation under law as long as they uphold the law and respect others rights and property; if they decide to deviate from that, that's their decision, and I will stand 100% by the statement that any resulting injury or death - including their own - is, by inference, their fault.

though for the purposes of comparison I would argue that there is validity in mentioning it as it exposes the ambiguous attitude to killing and the law among some people.

I'm confused - you earlier said that you weren't comparing ? But anyway, as I've clarified above, there is no ambiguity - my view is based solely on the cause-and-effect based on the actions of the individual involved in the crime, not their beliefs or background or race or anything remotely like that.

Bottom line is this: please don't accuse me of having some underhand "political perspective" - I have none.

I just have no sympathy for anyone who deliberately breaks the law; **** happens and accidents happen, and the law needs to be flexible enough to deal with those compassionately, but someone makes a conscious decision to break the law or commit a crime, then tough **** - that was their call and any consequences are a knock-on effect from that decision.

And for the record, I would apply that to myself; while I will never, ever set out to injure or murder anyone innocent, or put them at risk by my actions, I will try to relate it to one area : I think that if you (or I) crash at 90mph you should not be covered by your insurance - you deviate from your legal obligations and the insurance company should be released from any obligation that might result.

As the law stands, though, I could crash and get the money back - that's the way the law is. Anyone who died in the crash would be entitled to hate me, though - and that opinion of me would be my fault, no-one else's.

Zambia

Well if you think being released is bad try the fact that the policing board up North now contains a convicted Terrorist. Who would not actually be allowed Join the PSNI at any level even to clean the Loo's.

But as Hugh Orde said these are the times we live in...

FTA69

Considering he was a qualifying prisoner under the GFA he should have been released years ago. I wish him all the best for the future.

JakeLuxor

Zambia232 wrote:

Well if you think being released is bad try the fact that the policing board up North now contains a convicted Terrorist. Who would not actually be allowed Join the PSNI at any level even to clean the Loo's.

But as Hugh Orde said these are the times we live in...

Sure why shouldnt there be a "convicted terrorist" on the policing board, there are plenty of unconvicted terrorists still in the ranks of the PSNI/RUC.

Zambia

Was he ? I was trying to estabilish this last night and all outrage aside did Ireland agree under the GFA to release all IRA connected prisoners held in the republic ?

FTA69

The GFA condition was that the prisoner be convicted of an offence before 1998 and that the organisation he/she belonged to remained on a cease-fire, in fact other IRA Volunteers who were incarcerated because they killed a guard were released, and they were convicted of actual murder.

The Castlera 4 (3 now) took their case to the High Court who said they were qualifying prisoners but that the power to release them rested with the Minister for Justice, who refused to release them.

Zambia

JakeLuxor wrote:

Sure why shouldnt there be a "convicted terrorist" on the policing board, there are plenty of unconvicted terrorists still in the ranks of the PSNI/RUC.

If you have proof of a terrorist within the PSNI send it to the ombudsmans office . If there is evidence of wrong doing they will take action.