What a complete scumbag..

KingLoser

http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/robbed-blind-man-needed-60-stitches/

Sully

Robbed blind man needed 60 stitches
Friday, August 29th, 2008

* < prev
* 1 of 1
* next >

* [It was alleged that the defendant entered the off-licence in George’s St (above) and slashed the owner on the face.]

The blind owner of a city centre off-licence received 60 stitches to his face after he was attacked by a man who raided his premises, it was stated in Waterford District Court this week.

Before the court on Tuesday was James Halligan (26), with an address at 62 Logloss, Gracedieu, Waterford, who is charged with robbing €550 and six cans of Heineken the property of John Walsh at Walsh’s Off Licence, George’s St, Waterford, on August 15 last.

Objecting to bail, Garda Joe Cawley, Waterford, said he opposed bail because of the seriousness of the charge. Two bench warrants for the arrest of the defendant had been issued on previous occasions and he was on court bail when the alleged incident occurred.

It was alleged that the defendant entered the off-licence in George’s St, Waterford, and slashed the owner on the face. The injured man required 60 stitches in hospital. The injured party was completely blind and the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and cannabis during the attack.

Mr Pat Newell, defence solicitor, said his client co-operated with the Gardai, had strong ties with Waterford and was due to commence a treatment course with Aiseiri.

Refusing jurisdiction in the case, Judge Gerard Haughton said it was clearly a matter that should go to the Circuit Court and he was not prepared to grant bail. The alleged offence was committed when the defendant was on bail and two warrants had to be issued for his arrest previously. The defendant was remanded in custody for two weeks.

I can never understand the menatilty of these people. Just disgraceful and I hope he gets whats coming to him from the courts.

mike65

I'm sure his family is proud of him.

Mike

Freddie59

Sully wrote: »

I can never understand the menatilty of these people. Just disgraceful and I hope he gets whats coming to him from the courts.

Unfortunately he probably won't.

mang

sure check the family name.. theres a particular family with that second name in the town, if its the same family.. they have all done worse..
hopefully he will get a good bating and have worse done to him

dazftw

€550 and six cans of Heineken.

wow. Yea its probably worse he'll get off easy. Poor man! I see him most days when im in town.

karlr42

I'm glad bail wasn't granted, it's too often given out too easily and abused

lugha

I see his solicitor pointed out that his client has "strong ties with Waterford"

Has anybody any idea what his point might be?

m3llowship

lugha wrote: »

I see his solicitor pointed out that his client has "strong ties with Waterford"

Has anybody any idea what his point might be?

Not sure what it means but it doesnt sound to good does it?

I mean a guy like that, what kind of positive ties with Waterford can he possibly have

BlaasForRafa

mang wrote: »

sure check the family name.. theres a particular family with that second name in the town, if its the same family.. they have all done worse..
hopefully he will get a good bating and have worse done to him

Indeed a family with that second name has been known for violent acts in the past.

60 stitches is a heck of a lot of damage...and to a poor oul blind guy as well, he's obviously a complete and utter scumbag. All this business of a treatment course....so he gets to shift the blame for this gbh on to his "addiction" eh?

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

I see his solicitor pointed out that his client has "strong ties with Waterford"

Has anybody any idea what his point might be?

Probably trying to make out that he wouldn't be a flight risk........:rolleyes:

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

Probably trying to make out that he wouldn't be a flight risk........:rolleyes:

Yeah. I guess that's probably it.

I have to say if I was representing him I would be embarassed to even ask for bail!

karlr42

lugha wrote: »

Yeah. I guess that's probably it.

I have to say if I was representing him I would be embarassed to even ask for bail!

Lawyers have no souls.


Just kidding.

henboy

He will just be sent down to cork prison with the rest of his buddys

These people are not like you and i where we get up for work every morning. As far as i can see there mentality is "THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO IN THIS COUNTRY IS A DAYS WORK"

This story makes me sick but to be honest his name says it all

magick

you know, ive probably passed that shop about a million times before and ive never gone in there, i had a peek in once and it looked like a place time had forgot, a real classic. It makes my blood boil when i read or hear stories such as these, complete cowards taking advantage. Next time im back home ill be sure to pop in and buy a bottle or two.

robtri

the thread title says it all..................

Cabaal

for feck sake, the poor lad, I knew of him and have passed the shop a million times but never went in there.

What a complete scumbag, whipping would be to good for him

dlofnep

The culplrit has a history of being a complete and utter scumbag. I know of him well. The thing is, prison won't rehabilitate him - it will only punish him. People like that never change. But feck it, he deserves all the punishment he gets. Stuff like this makes me really angry. This was a bad thing to read first thing in the morning.

Tzetze

Cannabis doesn't slash people's faces, scumbags do.

Duckjob

Scum.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

- Build an island with high impassable walls and nothing inside.
- Drop him in there (don't land, just f**k him out of the plane) along with other similar scum, and let them kill/eat each other.

No point in paying to keep scum like this alive running the risk they might breed and produce more scum.

dlofnep

Tzetze wrote: »

Cannabis doesn't slash people's faces, scumbags do.

Correct. And besides, most stoners aren't the type of people who do.

jim o doom

dlofnep wrote: »

Correct. And besides, most stoners aren't the type of people who do.

Yeah inclined to agree with that - I was wondering where cannabis even came into it in the first place.. couldn't see a first post but I'm great at missing things

dlofnep

jim o doom wrote: »

Yeah inclined to agree with that - I was wondering where cannabis even came into it in the first place.. couldn't see a first post but I'm great at missing things

Says in the report that he blamed his actions on cannabis and alcohol. The weakest excuse ever. Alcohol and cannabis don't make you enter a store with intent to rob and beat up an old man. Quite frankly, the fella involved is well known in Waterford for being a pure and utter scumbag.

The real shame is that he'll probably do 2 years at most, and will be out again doing the same old crap once he gets out. People like him will never change.

damonjewel

jim o doom wrote: »

Yeah inclined to agree with that - I was wondering where cannabis even came into it in the first place.. couldn't see a first post but I'm great at missing things

He probably used it in his defence, hope the w@nker gets crammed into a ****ty prison having to slop out his crap every morning for the next 20 years.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

Says in the report that he blamed his actions on cannabis and alcohol. The weakest excuse ever. Alcohol and cannabis don't make you enter a store with intent to rob and beat up an old man. Quite frankly, the fella involved is well known in Waterford for being a pure and utter scumbag.

The real shame is that he'll probably do 2 years at most, and will be out again doing the same old crap once he gets out. People like him will never change.

His solicitor is very well known and is quite a popular one. I would doubt he would use the excuse if he felt it was weak (not supporting the actions of the chap of course).

I always thought cannabis DOES have a tendency to make you go a bit "odd" and mixing it with alcohol (which we all know if you drink enough of without mixing can make you go "odd") would be a dangerous mix?

Cabaal

dlofnep but he has strong links with waterford so its all ok :rolleyes:

gaz wac

Sully wrote: »

I always thought cannabis DOES have a tendency to make you go a bit "odd" and mixing it with alcohol (which we all know if you drink enough of without mixing can make you go "odd") would be a dangerous mix?

If it was only cannabis the last thing he want to is slash someones face...its hard enough to get off the sofa for another packet of monster munch

BlaasForRafa

Cabaal wrote: »

for feck sake, the poor lad, I knew of him and have passed the shop a million times but never went in there.

same here, must go in there soon, you never know when these curious old shops will close down. For example Phelans tobacconist was a great little shop, a place a bloke could go into and buy stuff.

Isn't there meant to be a small bar in the back of the off-licence or something?....maybe I'm getting that wrong but I thats what I heard a while ago

dintbo

Yeah there is. Only a few people, who this gentleman knows, are allowed in.

As for the alcohol/cannabis thing, I really don't think that combination would really make you do something as serious as that, unless you already had such tendencies anyway.

topper75

Sully wrote: »

I always thought cannabis DOES have a tendency to make you go a bit "odd" and mixing it with alcohol (which we all know if you drink enough of without mixing can make you go "odd") would be a dangerous mix?

So what are you saying? - there but for the grace of God go I or anyone else who drinks a few cans and smokes a joint?

sunnyse

Sully wrote: »

His solicitor is very well known and is quite a popular one. I would doubt he would use the excuse if he felt it was weak (not supporting the actions of the chap of course).

I always thought cannabis DOES have a tendency to make you go a bit "odd" and mixing it with alcohol (which we all know if you drink enough of without mixing can make you go "odd") would be a dangerous mix?

Firstly, solicitors have used the "drugs and alcohol" defence since courts began so I wouldn't put much store in that.
Secondly I have never seen anyone who has smoked a joint stand up and stab someone else, it's effects are completely opposite in nature but of course it's not possible to believe this piece of human garbage was just a Filthy scumbag without a decent bone in his body. It's much easier to blame "THE DRUGS"

dlofnep

Sully wrote: »

I always thought cannabis DOES have a tendency to make you go a bit "odd" and mixing it with alcohol (which we all know if you drink enough of without mixing can make you go "odd") would be a dangerous mix?

There is a difference between odd and flat out robbing an old man and beating him up. Alcohol and cannabis did NOT do that or cause that. Being a complete and utter scumbag who's an absolute waste to society and wouldn't be lost one bit by anyone if he ended up in the river tomorrow is what caused it.

This topic is actually making me angry at this point. I just can't imagine how frightened that poor old man was, and for what? So this scumbag could get a few cans and a few quid? ARG.

So please Sully, don't try blame this on a few cans and a spliff. Scumbagism is the cause, and the only cause. I've seen dogs with more manners than people like him.

Einstein

Kudos to the blind man that runs a business tbh

Sully

sunnyse wrote: »

Firstly, solicitors have used the "drugs and alcohol" defence since courts began so I wouldn't put much store in that.

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.

Secondly I have never seen anyone who has smoked a joint stand up and stab someone else, it's effects are completely opposite in nature but of course it's not possible to believe this piece of human garbage was just a Filthy scumbag without a decent bone in his body. It's much easier to blame "THE DRUGS"

Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

sunnyse

Sully wrote: »

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.



Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

If you want me to trawl the internet i'm sure we could be swapping propoganda sites from both sides of the arguement all day but that's probably best left to AH.
My point is that this guy is a complete scumbag and the fact that he smokes dope or drinks should be immaterial. It's just an excuse for a depraved and sadistic act. I Drink like a fish at times and have been known to be partial to the odd excursion into various illicit substances but i've never felt the need to slash a blind man open and rob him;)

Sully

sunnyse wrote: »

If you want me to trawl the internet i'm sure we could be swapping propoganda sites from both sides of the arguement all day but that's probably best left to AH.

Sure, sure :P

My point is that this guy is a complete scumbag and the fact that he smokes dope or drinks should be immaterial. It's just an excuse for a depraved and sadistic act. I Drink like a fish at times and have been known to be partial to the odd excursion into various illicit substances but i've never felt the need to slash a blind man open and rob him;)

Oh I know, I am not doubting that for one second my point was in relation to the defence argument

CaramelBear

Einstein wrote: »

Kudos to the blind man that runs a business tbh

Agreed.

But the story sickens me. At least if he'd attacked someone who wasn't weaker than himself, I'd be like, "Idiot." That's just totally and absolutely in humane.

Sully wrote: »

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.



Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

That is true. All drugs have a certain negative effect. However, the man's actions cannot be solely blamed on substance abuse.

And most people here, I've noticed, get pregnant, and then don't bother trying to bring up individuals of substance. They just scream and yell at them, hit them even. And then they have violence from the very people who are meant to love them. As in all cases, there are exceptions. I've seen people who got pregnant unexpectedly and have driven themselves to make sure their children will never have to go through the same things they had to go thru as a child themselves.

Personally, I think it's sad and pathetic.

dlofnep

Sully wrote: »

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.



Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

Sully stop boy. He robbed that man because he's a pure and utter scumbag. Not because he was stoned or drunk. It does not excuse it even 1%. I know plenty of people who have an odd drink and smoke and never, not ever have they even dreamed about beating up an old man and robbing his shop.

Get real Sully. The problem here isn't alcohol or cannabis. The problem here is this scumbag. Nothing else.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

Sully stop boy. He robbed that man because he's a pure and utter scumbag. Not because he was stoned or drunk. It does not excuse it even 1%. I know plenty of people who have an odd drink and smoke and never, not ever have they even dreamed about beating up an old man and robbing his shop.

Get real Sully. The problem here isn't alcohol or cannabis. The problem here is this scumbag. Nothing else.

Ah for crying out loud. If you read my posts you will see two things.

1) I completely agree this muppet is a scumbag and what he did was wrong and nothing can excuse it.

2) A comment was made that the defence was weak and people were laughing at how stupid it was. I pointed out that he has a damn good lawyer (that a lot of Guards would be afraid to go up against) and that the excuse given DOES carry some weight REGARDLESS of whether its a valid excuse or not.

Also, completely off topic, but I find it rich that your shouting the odds at me and you support a political party that has strong connections with terrorists who murdered hundreds of people over the years and god knows how many they have physically assaulted and terrorised. **** that.

robtri

Sully wrote: »

Ah for crying out loud. If you read my posts you will see two things.

1) I completely agree this muppet is a scumbag and what he did was wrong and nothing can excuse it.

2) A comment was made that the defence was weak and people were laughing at how stupid it was. I pointed out that he has a damn good lawyer (that a lot of Guards would be afraid to go up against) and that the excuse given DOES carry some weight REGARDLESS of whether its a valid excuse or not.

Also, completely off topic, but I find it rich that your shouting the odds at me and you support a political party that has strong connections with terrorists who murdered hundreds of people over the years and god knows how many they have physically assaulted and terrorised. **** that.

Everbody is out to jump on KING SULLY today..... not your day at all Sully...
:D:D:D:D:D

_FRANK_

jasus i've left him alone..........................for now

I hope the barman makes a full recovery and that other fella gets all the bad karma thats coming to him.

dlofnep

Sully wrote: »

Also, completely off topic, but I find it rich that your shouting the odds at me and you support a political party that has strong connections with terrorists who murdered hundreds of people over the years and god knows how many they have physically assaulted and terrorised. **** that.

Nice ad hominem. What has the political party I support have to do with the topic at hand? I personally have never assaulted anyone, nor have I terrorised anyone. Secondly, the IRA has disbanded - so who exactly is it that SF supports? The PIRA no longer exists. I joined SF after the GFA, and after the IRA had disbanded - So it's irrelevant as to what I currently support as the party that I current support is involved in a diplomatic process through peace and understanding. So no, it's not rich and is certainly not contradictory to call this scumbag for what he is - a pure and utter disgrace to society. You obviously missed the hundreds of anti-social and drug-problem awareness campaigns ran by Ógra across the country over the years while addressing other issues in the community, not to mention SF's hard work to help the working class communities of Ireland - but instead of seeing the good in us, all you can see is something that is WELL in the past.

If you've anything else you want to get off of your chest, you can drop me a line in college for a good old chat. I'm not hard to find. Next time, stick to the topic at hand. People have been issued infractions for less.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

Nice ad hominem. What has the political party I support have to do with the topic at hand? I personally have never assaulted anyone, nor have I terrorised anyone. Secondly, the IRA has disbanded - so who exactly is it that SF supports? The PIRA no longer exists. I joined SF after the GFA, and after the IRA had disbanded - So it's irrelevant as to what I currently support as the party that I current support is involved in a diplomatic process through peace and understanding. So no, it's not rich and is certainly not contradictory to call this scumbag for what he is - a pure and utter disgrace to society. You obviously missed the hundreds of anti-social and drug-problem awareness campaigns ran by Ógra across the country over the years while addressing other issues in the community, not to mention SF's hard work to help the working class communities of Ireland - but instead of seeing the good in us, all you can see is something that is WELL in the past.

If you've anything else you want to get off of your chest, you can drop me a line in college for a good old chat. I'm not hard to find. Next time, stick to the topic at hand. People have been issued infractions for less.

I wont get into a political debate with you - I just found it rich you were having a go at me (me, who already stated I was not defending the chap and already supported many others who called him a scumbag) considering the party you are involved in. Was an off topic comment made in relation to a few of your posts. Its stupid to jump on me and have a go when clearly you couldn't spend time to read my posts and get a clearer picture of the point I was getting across.

dlofnep

Sully wrote: »

I wont get into a political debate with you - I just found it rich you were having a go at me (me, who already stated I was not defending the chap and already supported many others who called him a scumbag) considering the party you are involved in. Was an off topic comment made in relation to a few of your posts. Its stupid to jump on me and have a go when clearly you couldn't spend time to read my posts and get a clearer picture of the point I was getting across.

I was under the impression that you were attempting to partially blame cannabis and alcohol for his actions by citing.

sully wrote:

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible.

sully wrote:

Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

If that's not an attempt to try and blame cannabis, then what is it?

Also, the party I support is irrelevant to the matter and I am perfectly entitled to highlight my opinions on the issue, especially since I am familiar with the person involved and his history of abuse. It was an attempt to have a cheap pop at me. You can have it. I'm well above that nonsense. You don't know anything about me, let alone enough to judge me on what I can comment on and what I can't.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

I was under the impression that you were attempting to partially blame cannabis and alcohol for his actions by citing.

If that's not an attempt to try and blame cannabis, then what is it?

Selective quoting isn't cool.

Sully wrote: »

I can never understand the menatilty of these people. Just disgraceful and I hope he gets whats coming to him from the courts.

(See, I don't support what he was doing and I spoke out against him.)

dlofnep wrote: »

Says in the report that he blamed his actions on cannabis and alcohol. The weakest excuse ever. Alcohol and cannabis don't make you enter a store with intent to rob and beat up an old man. Quite frankly, the fella involved is well known in Waterford for being a pure and utter scumbag.

The real shame is that he'll probably do 2 years at most, and will be out again doing the same old crap once he gets out. People like him will never change.

(You made a point that the defence was weak)

Sully wrote: »

His solicitor is very well known and is quite a popular one. I would doubt he would use the excuse if he felt it was weak (not supporting the actions of the chap of course).

I always thought cannabis DOES have a tendency to make you go a bit "odd" and mixing it with alcohol (which we all know if you drink enough of without mixing can make you go "odd") would be a dangerous mix?

(I pointed out that no, its not a weak excuse and said solicitor would be very good)

Sully wrote: »

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.

Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

(above in response to people questioning whether cannabis does actually effect you in the way suggested by the defence)

Sully wrote: »

Sure, sure :P



Oh I know, I am not doubting that for one second my point was in relation to the defence argument

(Clarifying why I was pointing out affects of cannabis, and further stating that I was not supporting the accused in anyway).

So there we have it, the bigger picture which paints a different picture. So next time, don't jump at me and start throwing around stupid comments without being able to back it up.

Also, the party I support is irrelevant to the matter and I am perfectly entitled to highlight my opinions on the issue, especially since I am familiar with the person involved and his history of abuse. It was an attempt to have a cheap pop at me. You can have it. I'm well above that nonsense.

I could never support a party with such a dodgy past. It just seemed rich you would have a go at me when you stand by a party who have done far worse in the past. That was my point. I have nothing against you personally, you seem like a great guy and I have a lot of respect for you. So, eh, it wasn't a cheap pop - im not out to get you

dlofnep

If you were not attempting to blame it on the alcohol and cannabis, then I apologise. But the posts I highlighted explain how I came to my conclusion. Also - If it's not a cheap pop at me, then there is no need to discuss what party I support and what I don't support. Like I said, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the issue at hand, and I assure you - it's not the party that I support, which by the way I have great admiration for changing it's policies.

You were the one who made this personal Sully, not I. I just don't like seeing society blaming weed/beer for creating monsters like this guy. If that's not the case, then no worries. And I assure you, he is a monster and the streets would be better off without him. I grew up in Waterford City, and went to St. Pauls, so I'm all too familiar with his kind. And I don't mean the average working class people before that's misconstrued - but the typical scanger who cares about nothing but himself, and would go out of his way to harm an old BLIND man. I care deeply about old people or defenseless people in society which these people prey on. I could only imagine how horrible it must have been for that man to go through that and it has brought out alot of emotion in me in this thread, be it for the good or bad.

I'm a reasonable guy; I just take exception to my politics being brought into a thread like this.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

If you were not attempting to blame it on the alcohol and cannabis, then I apologise. But the posts I highlighted explain how I came to my conclusion.

That's why you should read all posts first before jumping the gun - which you did as you responded to my earlier posts. So I dunno.

Also - If it's not a cheap pop at me, then there is no need to discuss what party I support and what I don't support. Like I said, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the issue at hand, and I assure you - it's not the party that I support, which by the way I have great admiration for changing it's policies.

Why would I waste time throwing cheap pop at you? I have no problems with you, it just annoyed me when you started jumping at me without coming to a proper conclusion and I felt it was rich considering you stand by a party with such a dodgy past. Thats why I made the remark.

You were the one who made this personal Sully, not I. I just don't like seeing society blaming weed/beer for creating monsters like this guy. If that's not the case, then no worries. And I assure you, he is a monster and the streets would be better off without him. I grew up in Waterford City, and went to St. Pauls, so I'm all too familiar with his kind. And I don't mean the average working class people before that's misconstrued - but the typical scanger who cares about nothing but himself, and would go out of his way to harm an old BLIND man. I care deeply about old people or defenseless people in society which these people prey on. I could only imagine how horrible it must have been for that man to go through that and it has brought out alot of emotion in me in this thread, be it for the good or bad.

Agreed. I fully support you and I fully support getting this muppet locked up and out of society's way.

I'm a reasonable guy; I just take exception to my politics being brought into a thread like this.

Fair enough. I just got annoyed at the bickering and lashed out at something I felt was hypocritical. Emotions for ya!

King Ludvig

Well he's going places in life :mad:

ec18

can anyone say off topic? :P



Is there any word on a trial date or even if it's going to trial?

AdMMM

If I was Sully, I'd have banned myself by now.

I make a living by noticing patterns and I've spotted one here. Sully "contributes" to every topic, regardless of what it's about and decides on an opinion to have, hell he might even just google it and adapt someone elses. Then, he'll vehemently defend his "opinion", drag the thread off topic and borderline troll the forum. After a while of wiggling like a worm through other people's well articulated arguments, he'll soon give in and say something along the lines of:

"Fair Enough, I just thought X but see your point".

Sully

AdMMM wrote: »

If I was Sully, I'd have banned myself by now.

I make a living by noticing patterns and I've spotted one here. Sully "contributes" to every topic, regardless of what it's about and decides on an opinion to have, hell he might even just google it and adapt someone elses. Then, he'll vehemently defend his "opinion", drag the thread off topic and borderline troll the forum. After a while of wiggling like a worm through other people's well articulated arguments, he'll soon give in and say something along the lines of:

"Fair Enough, I just thought X but see your point".

Excellent Post AdMMM. What took you so long to have another dig? It has been sometime, I must say. Nice to see your continuing to drag the thread "off topic" though.