What do you have to do to get convicted of murder these days?

Pub07

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardas-son-guilty-of-killing-traveller-1636784.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0202/breaking74.htm

And remember that other case recently where some 18/19 year old ran out of his house with knives and killed a guy who was standing outside thehouse with some friends, he got done for manslaughter too.

And then there was the case of the guy who shot his friend from point blank range with a shotgun in a car and left him in a permanent vegetative state - he gets 9 years, prob out in 6 years.


The justice system in this country is a joke, it's almost as bad as the political system, what do you have to do to get convicted of murder in Ireland these days...do you have to tie someone up and use a blowtorch on them or something?

Borneo Fnctn

Kill a guy.

destroyer

or a gal

Professey Chin

jackpalance wrote: »

Kill a guy.

destroyer wrote: »

or a gal

Or a tranny

Puddleduck

In front of a judge, some cops, and a solicitor...

you also have to prove that you werent just really tired or something...

thebman

Reminds me of Blackadder TBH.

He was witnessed at the scene stabbing the man yelling "I'm glad I killed the b*stard".

Not only did he get off but the judge ordered the families of the victim to wash the blood stains off his clothes.

The best lawyer in London, apparently just a half arsed judicial system in Ireland can have the same effect.

Robbo

jackpalance wrote: »

Kill a guy.

With the intention to kill or seriously injure them or whilst being reckless as to whether you kill seriously injure them.

longshanks

Puddleduck wrote: »

In front of a judge, some cops, and a solicitor...

you also have to prove that you werent just really tired or something...

if you kill a fella with three of your posh mates you only get a couple of years, and time off (from prison) to do your exams

gamblor1975

The son of the Garda, had a knife in his possession, Took it out after the traveller had bettered him with his fists and then got one good "Stab" in. How is this not murder in its most vile, petty form?

Danbo!

"McGovern told gardai that he was shocked that he had pulled a knife on somebody and had only taken out the knife to scare Michael Doherty and didn't mean to make contact."

Well fair enough, he didn't think he'd pull a knife on someone :rolleyes:

CiaranC

Murder is planned and premeditated.

Smart Bug

In the second case it's clear pre-meditation, how the fcuk did he not go down for 20?!

Lads get refused from a party, go back to their house, arm themselves, return and stab a chap to death. Manslaughter my bollix.

biko

When even the sons of Guards *have to* carry knifes you know it's getting rough out there on the mean streets.

cornbb

Beats me. Also remember the case of a certain mayo farmer who shot a fleeing man in the back and got away with it...

Smart Bug

cornbb wrote: »

Beats me. Also remember the case of a certain mayo farmer who shot a fleeing man in the back and got away with it...

Only thing is with this case - the farmer was being serially victimised & abused by the cretins involved. I'd leave him off over that.

ARGINITE

Smart Bug wrote:

Only thing is with this case - the farmer was being serially victimised & abused by the cretins involved. I'd leave him off over that.

QFT.

Pub07

jackpalance wrote: »

Kill a guy.

obviously not.

cornbb

Smart Bug wrote: »

Only thing is with this case - the farmer was being serially victimised & abused by the cretins involved. I'd leave him off over that.

Oh right. My neighbour's dog regularly sh*ts on my lawn. Maybe its ok for me to slit its throat on that basis.

Murder is murder, it can't be negated with excuses like that. By "letting him off" you would set a nasty precedent that its ok to kill somebody in cold blood for a reason other than self defence.

longshanks

biko wrote: »

When even the sons of Guards *have to* carry knifes you know it's getting rough out there on the mean streets.

i remember back to when i was in secondary school, the sons of guards were always the ones who'd be fighting, drunk or taking acid in school, robbing stuff etc.
its like they were trying to prove they were hard or crazy or whatever, whereas everyone knew that anytime they were caught doing anything they would get away with it cos daddy would step in

ARGINITE

cornbb wrote:

Oh right. My neighbour's dog regularly sh*ts on my lawn. Maybe its ok for me to slit its throat on that basis.

TBH I could give the dog a boot in the rear end a few time and if it still didn't learn it's lesson then I would have dispatching it.

If the mayo farmer was your father how would you feel about the subject?

My parents live not to far away from the man and if people were serially victimising and abusing then, then I think my father would have every right to put a stop to it.

cornbb

ARGINITE wrote: »

TBH I could give the dog a boot in the rear end a few time and if it still didn't learn it's lesson then I would have dispatching it.

I hope you don't move to galway so or the streets will be littered with slaughtered pooches :pac:
EDIT: just read that you are already in Galway, nevermind

If the mayo farmer was your father how would you feel about the subject?

If the farmer was a relative of mine I would be in no fit state to pass judgement on the man that killed him. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to sit on the jury in that case. I really don't think any justice system should revolve around "how would you feel if?" scenarios. Don't you think it would be fairer on everyone if judges, juries and observers did their best to remain impartial and impassionate?

i think it was grand that the farmer shot that guy in the back.. better if he'd kneecapped him first.

victimisation is not cool, just cause the guy had his back turned doesn't take away all he had done before.

ARGINITE

cornbb wrote: »

I hope you don't move to galway so or the streets will be littered with slaughtered pooches :pac:
EDIT: just read that you are already in Galway, nevermind


If the farmer was a relative of mine I would be in no fit state to pass judgement on the man that killed him. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to sit on the jury in that case. I really don't think any justice system should revolve around "how would you feel if?" scenarios. Don't you think it would be fairer on everyone if judges, juries and observers did their best to remain impartial and impassionate?

My philosophy has always been "shoot them all and let god sort them out"

I didn't ask about the judges, juries and observers and how they stayed impartial. I asked how would you feel?

Svalbard

Murder is an acceptable form of revenge? In Mayo, perhaps, but not in the civilized world.

ARGINITE

But victimisation is?

Svalbard

ARGINITE wrote: »

But victimisation is?

Oh of course, Arginite, top argument.
Thou shalt not kill...unless you are being victimized. Yes I forgot that addendum. How can people actually have opinions like that in this day and age?

Svalbard

Svalbard wrote: »

Murder is an acceptable form of revenge? In Mayo, perhaps, but not in the civilized world.

the farmer didn't plan a revenge. he reacted to victimisation which was sure to happen again unless he took action.

revenge is a different kettle of fish.

cornbb

ARGINITE wrote: »

My philosophy has always been "shoot them all and let god sort them out"

I didn't ask about the judges, juries and observers and how they stayed impartial. I asked how would you feel?

I would be devastated of course! But your question is pointless. How would you feel if you were the widow or child of the man who was shot?

conlonbmw

Deleted User wrote: »

i think it was grand that the farmer shot that guy in the back.. better if he'd kneecapped him first.

victimisation is not cool, just cause the guy had his back turned doesn't take away all he had done before.

He shot him in the back, picked him up, then carried him on his back and threw him over a wall and left him to die.

He should have said he fired a warning shot, and then shot him dead, then he would have been fine.

The great thing is that if someone robs your house and you have a shotgun, put a shot in the ceiling before or after you shoot them. CSI could not tell you which shot was first.

BTW crime in Nally's area went down over 40% after Frog was shot.

S.I.R

biko wrote: »

When even the sons of Guards *have to* carry knifes you know it's getting rough out there on the mean streets.

their aint no mean streets...


ive walked through finglas, The mun, heck even dollymount strand without having any trouble with the travellers or the local eejits


only dundrum has the lads with something to prove... :rolleyes:

cornbb

cornbb wrote: »

I would be devastated of course! But your question is pointless. How would you feel if you were the widow or child of the man who was shot?

who's gonna sell all those gates?

thebman

Svalbard wrote: »

Oh of course, Arginite, top argument.
Thou shalt not kill...unless you are being victimized. Yes I forgot that addendum. How can people actually have opinions like that in this day and age?

I think the eye for an eye part helps justify it.

Anyway killing is wrong in most circumstances. Its wrong to say that in all circumstances becuase people can be pushed to extremes by tools.

cornbb

Deleted User wrote: »

who's gonna sell all those gates?

Nice, real nice. Thank you for demonstrating the real reason that Padraig Nally got away with murder: prejudice.

cornbb

thebman wrote: »

Anyway killing is wrong in most circumstances. Its wrong to say that in all circumstances becuase people can be pushed to extremes by tools.

It would be acceptable to kill in order to save your own life in the immediate term. To kill because you were just too darned stressed out to contain yourself is wrong, I think.

cornbb

cornbb wrote: »

Nice, real nice. Thank you for demonstrating the real reason that Padraig Nally got away with murder: prejudice.

lol ya, whatever ya wanna call it.

ARGINITE

cornbb wrote: »

I would be devastated of course! But your question is pointless. How would you feel if you were the widow or child of the man who was shot?

I would think twice about following in my father foot steps.

conlonbmw

cornbb wrote: »

It would be acceptable to kill in order to save your own life in the immediate term. To kill because you were just too darned stressed out to contain yourself is wrong, I think.

You should be allowed to kill these


Scumbag that breaks into your house.

Nonce that messes with your kids.

Rapists, especially of elderly women.


All criminals with 50 or more convictions should be tagged and DNA tested.

Think how easy it would be to solve a crime when you can prove with GPS that the crim was within 3 feet of the area at the right time, and they left DNA evidence.

i agree with all the above..

cornbb

ARGINITE wrote: »

I would think twice about following in my father foot steps.

Of course. He wasn't a good man. But that's beside the point. The fact that he did something bad doesn't entitle anyone to kill him. We have a justice system to punish him. Before anyone goes off on a rant about how crap the justice system is, I know, its far from perfect, but if it starts becoming acceptable for people to take justice into their own hands we might as well forget about civilisation and go back into the trees flinging our crap at each other.

Svalbard

This thread began with the OP expressing disbelief that people who have taken the lives of others are not convicted of murder and receive lenient sentences.
Reading the opinions on this board it is hardly a surprise really. Murder seems strangely acceptable to you people. Its no wonder the courts of this country reflect this.
Murder is wrong in all circumstances. One person does not have the right to take the life of another. I am actually in disbelief that most people on here don't agree.

cornbb

Svalbard wrote: »

This thread began with the OP expressing disbelief that people who have taken the lives of others are not convicted of murder and receive lenient sentences.
Reading the opinions on this board it is hardly a surprise really. Murder seems strangely acceptable to you people. Its no wonder the courts of this country reflect this.
Murder is wrong in all circumstances. One person does not have the right to take the life of another. I am actually in disbelief that most people on here don't agree.

QFT. Far too many people aren't interested in justice, they are interested in revenge and are motivated by outrage.

conlonbmw

Svalbard wrote: »

This thread began with the OP expressing disbelief that people who have taken the lives of others are not convicted of murder and receive lenient sentences.
Reading the opinions on this board it is hardly a surprise really. Murder seems strangely acceptable to you people. Its no wonder the courts of this country reflect this.
Murder is wrong in all circumstances. One person does not have the right to take the life of another. I am actually in disbelief that most people on here don't agree.

Heres a scenario especially for you

you are woken up in the middle of the night with a gun or blade to your neck, and scumbag starts getting frisky with your family (wife or kids),

you have a chance to stop it by killing scumbag.

What would you do?

SoWatchaWant

There was a good one a while back, a man stabbed another man something like 20 times in the eyes face and groin, and tried to get it down to self-defence as opposed to murder. He did not succeed.

Svalbard

conlonbmw wrote: »

Heres a scenario especially for you

you are woken up in the middle of the night with a gun or blade to your neck, and scumbag starts getting frisky with your family (wife or kids),

you have a chance to stop it by killing scumbag.

What would you do?

Is killing said scumbag my only choice?

Dudess

Well there's self defence to consider. I think people are underestimating the extent of what Nally, living alone in a very remote area, was going through. It would be absolutely terrifying for anyone, let alone someone who's shoving on in years like Nally.

Pub07

Pub07 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardas-son-guilty-of-killing-traveller-1636784.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0202/breaking74.htm

And remember that other case recently where some 18/19 year old ran out of his house with knives and killed a guy who was standing outside thehouse with some friends, he got done for manslaughter too.

And then there was the case of the guy who shot his friend from point blank range with a shotgun in a car and left him in a permanent vegetative state - he gets 9 years, prob out in 6 years.


The justice system in this country is a joke, it's almost as bad as the political system, what do you have to do to get convicted of murder in Ireland these days...do you have to tie someone up and use a blowtorch on them or something?

I heard that the 14 year old knacker was the one who provoked the fight.

longshanks

longshanks wrote: »

if you kill a fella with three of your posh mates you only get a couple of years, and time off (from prison) to do your exams

In reference to this, the lad that died was not innocent at all.Plus the person who gave him the fatal blow was never arrested.It was papers like the Sunday World with their anti- south side, anti fee paying that made that case so big.

Vegeta

Deleted User wrote: »

In reference to this, the lad that died was not innocent at all.

What was he convicted of?

Vegeta

Vegeta wrote: »

What was he convicted of?

can't convict somebody who is dead.

At the end of the day.It was a fight that went wrong, guarantee if one of the "posh" lads had got killed, you would hear nothing about it in the "Sunday Wurlid"

Blazer

Svalbard wrote: »

Is killing said scumbag my only choice?

Of course not...you can talk nice to him while he rapes your wife and children in the hope he'll realise what a naughty boy he's been and beg your forgiveness.
Of course he might then decide just to kill ye all.
At what point exactly will you decide to try and stop this guy?
Before he rapes your wife?
Before he rapes your children?
Before he kills your wife?
Before he kills your children?
Before he kills you?

Here's the dilemna..how far is this guy going to go?
Can you trust him when he tells you that "oh i'm just gonna do the missus".
He's already proved his trustworthiness by breaking into your house and holding you capture.
Are you going to take his word on this or are you thinking to yourself..this guy is not going to just stop with his wife?


Yes the political system in this country is a joke...there was a laywer on the Matt Cooper show recently..
He was explain why so many get off on manslaughter is that to prove first degree murder is nearly impossible for the under-resourced police to prove and most of the time they accept Manslaughter as a poor substitute.

Vegeta

Deleted User wrote: »

can't convict somebody who is dead.

So he was innocent, or are people guilty before they go to court :P

Or is it ok to beat someone to death if they start/get into a fight with you?

Just joshing you, "blameless" would have been a better choice of word

Also the Nally thing, I'm old, I'm being terrorised, do I move out of the area or kill someone hmmmmmmm