Eddie Halvey Sentence **CAUTION** May make you want to break somethin nearby in anger

Mr.Lizard

easyeason3 wrote: »

Truth is, our prison system is seriously overcrowded & there are worse criminals out there who need to be taken off the street. It doesn't make it fair but it is the way things are.

Depends on your definition of 'worse'. There's plenty of people in prison now for crimes I would consider lesser than Halveys. Crimes of necessity rather than just neglegence & selfishness. That kid is dead now because Halvey put his own enjoyment ahead of other peoples safety. If one guy robs my house for drug money and the next day a another person kills my son whilst DUI which person am I to consider 'worse'. Which crime do I consider 'worse'?

Instead of being angry at him over sentencing get angry at the justice system, or lack of. He's not behind bars but he got a life sentence as a result of his stupidity.

By all accounts he doesn't sound like the sort who'll let it weigh to heavily on his conscience. Reports of him still getting drunk in pubs after the event speaks volumes about him.

Mr.Lizard

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

By all accounts he doesn't sound like the sort who'll let it weigh to heavily on his conscience. Reports of him still getting drunk in pubs after the event speaks volumes about him.

If this is the case then it is an injustice. I guess I'm naive for believing in people eh!

galwayguy22

galwayguy22 wrote: »

I should get rid of my MP3 player and pull the radio out. Also hot chicks wearing revealing clothes during the summer should be banned from walking on the footpaths, and scenery should be got rid of too.

sure, if that's what you think :rolleyes:

5318008!

galwayguy22 wrote: »

I should get rid of my MP3 player and pull the radio out. Also hot chicks wearing revealing clothes during the summer should be banned from walking on the footpaths, and scenery should be got rid of too.

Not only that, the government should give free speed to drivers.Not every drug decreases your driving performance .

Eoin

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I totally agree, I know people who do both very regularly, I think these people are all idiots. I'm sure at some point though I have done it unwittingly and genuinely would not have thought I was over the limit. It's not something I would have ever done purpose. Since that "1 hour per drink" add came out I think more people are aware of the risks.

I am certain I've done it too, but like you, I've not missed the vast amount of publicity around it so just take the bus the next morning. I'd even think twice about driving the evening after if it's been a big night out. If I thought they were reliable, I'd get a breathalyser.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Can people drink that much? If twas me it would be an ambulance driving that morning.
Or rather the driver of the ambulance driving.
We'll have none of your anthropomorphic vehicles around here Thomas the Tank engine.

It is a lot, but if you're out from 8PM and head to a club until 2, then that's a drink every half hour which isn't really throwing them down yourself. I'd say a lot of people drink that much without being aware of it.

baglady

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

Depends on your definition of 'worse'. There's plenty of people in prison now for crimes I would consider lesser than Halveys. Crimes of necessity rather than just neglegence & selfishness. That kid is dead now because Halvey put his own enjoyment ahead of other peoples safety. If one guy robs my house for drug money and the next day a another person kills my son whilst DUI which person am I to consider 'worse'. Which crime do I consider 'worse'?



By all accounts he doesn't sound like the sort who'll let it weigh to heavily on his conscience. Reports of him still getting drunk in pubs after the event speaks volumes about him.

+1 spot on

dr.bollocko

dr.bollocko wrote: »

anthropomorphic

I googled this. Cool word!

Morlar

Well done Judge Tomas Teehan, a suspended sentence for killing a 16 yr old -un****ing real. This sentence goes nicely with that of the guy who got 3 years prison sentence for importing a few stunguns a couple of months ago (for some taxi drivers' personal protection).

PeakOutput

ok i do think the sentence was lenient BUT if it is true that it was the next day and the other car did pull out in front of him then it was not that lenient

firstly, while i have never done and never intend on doing it there is still the possibility of honest mistake that he thought he was legally fine to drive as it was the next morning

secondly, if the car pulled out in front of him if you look at it from an insurance point of view its the driver of the car who pulled outs fault. sure the drunk driver might have been able to stop faster or avoid it if he was sober but it was the other persons negligent driving in pulling out onto a main road that actually caused the accident

now i havnt read the articles so i dont know if this is what happened im only saying IF

Overheal

I can't fathom how these people think they are ok to drive in that state. Yes you can walk and you can talk. But you can not process road information in a timely fashion, and your response times are seriously impaired. You effectively succumb to tunnel vision. Not to mention obviously impaired judgement...

PeakOutput

oh and can one of the legal eagles here answer a question

if you are caught for drink driving does that automatically allow you to be charged with dangerous driving?

i imagine it dosnt and that would explain why he wasnt charged with dangerous driving causing death because from the sounds of it he TECHNICALLY was not at fault for the accident

easyeason3

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

Depends on your definition of 'worse'. There's plenty of people in prison now for crimes I would consider lesser than Halveys. Crimes of necessity rather than just neglegence & selfishness. That kid is dead now because Halvey put his own enjoyment ahead of other peoples safety. If one guy robs my house for drug money and the next day a another person kills my son whilst DUI which person am I to consider 'worse'. Which crime do I consider 'worse'?

Yes I can understand that but I was hinting towards the drug dealing/ gun toting criminals who think nothing of shooting someone dead deliberately. If prisons can't handle people like Eddie Halvey then something else needs to be implemented as an alternative.



By all accounts he doesn't sound like the sort who'll let it weigh to heavily on his conscience. Reports of him still getting drunk in pubs after the event speaks volumes about him.

It's very easy for him to go out & pretend to be the same man as he was before the accident. I can guarantee you that he is anything but the same man. I know if I killed someone I would be in a constant state of drunkeness to try & block out the horror that is my life. As I said already he will have to live with what he has done, how he can live with it I don't know but that will leave a bigger mark than a jail sentence ever could.

IvyTheTerrible

easyeason3 wrote: »

It's very easy for him to go out & pretend to be the same man as he was before the accident. I can guarantee you that he is anything but the same man. I know if I killed someone I would be in a constant state of drunkeness to try & block out the horror that is my life. As I said already he will have to live with what he has done, how he can live with it I don't know but that will leave a bigger mark than a jail sentence ever could.

So why don't we just leave all the manslaughter cases out of jail, cause, you know, the poor diddums all feel bad enough already??

Overheal

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok i do think the sentence was lenient BUT if it is true that it was the next day and the other car did pull out in front of him then it was not that lenient

Something I learned in Drivers ed, from Accident Officers (t3h legal eagles) There are No Scenarios in which you are not at fault if you drive into someone. It doesnt matter if they pull out in front of you or they slam on their brakes etc etc etc - you are supposed to be in complete control of your vehicle, following at safe distance. If someone pulls out in front of you then it is your responsibility to take the correct evasive action.

He failed to do this. He is at fault.

firstly, while i have never done and never intend on doing it there is still the possibility of honest mistake that he thought he was legally fine to drive as it was the next morning

Its irrelevant. Alcohol impairs judgement. Thats an undisputed fact of life. Just because he judged he was fit to drive does not make it so. Nor should it somehow excuse the charges.

secondly, if the car pulled out in front of him if you look at it from an insurance point of view its the driver of the car who pulled outs fault. sure the drunk driver might have been able to stop faster or avoid it if he was sober but it was the other persons negligent driving in pulling out onto a main road that actually caused the accident

now i havnt read the articles so i dont know if this is what happened im only saying IF

Like I said above, theres no situation where you are not at fault for colliding into another car in front of you.

sure the drunk driver might have been able to stop faster or avoid it if he was sober

Precisely. Again, inebriation does not excuse you of your responsibilites as a road user.

edit: oh and just in case you think this case isnt tainted with backhand deals and corruption

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thousands-in-petition-protest-over-rugby-star-case-1284942.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/halvey-to-face-road-death-trial-in-rethink-by-dpp-1432453.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rugby-star-halveys-case-over-fatal-crash-may-go-ahead-1306981.html

And Peakoutput further to the point he was at fault:

"The incident was alleged to have occurred following a two-vehicle collision on the busy N7 route ... The teen died when their car was struck from behind by a jeep."

I don't know what the situation is in Ireland, but in the US, that is immediate proof of fault on behalf of the Jeep driver (Eddie)

O'Coonassa

IMO it's really incredibly dumb to put an ape that evolved to move at 15mph tops behind the wheel of something that can move at +100mph. Kind of taxes the poor monkeys reflexes a little too severely when things go wrong.

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

Something I learned in Drivers ed, from Accident Officers (t3h legal eagles) There are No Scenarios in which you are not at fault if you drive into someone. It doesnt matter if they pull out in front of you or they slam on their brakes etc etc etc - you are supposed to be in complete control of your vehicle, following at safe distance. If someone pulls out in front of you then it is your responsibility to take the correct evasive action.

im sorry overheal you are 100% wrong, i worked in an irish insurance claims department for 2 years or thereabouts deciding on who was at fault for accidents on a daily basis. if you pull out from a side road and a car on the road you are pulling out onto hits you it is YOUR fault for not making sure the way was clear before you pulled out. i would be suprised if this was not the case in america too but that is not were my experience lies.

you are right that you are always at fault if you run into the BACK of someone accept in one or maybe two rare circumstances which relate to my above paragraph but they are very rare occurences

Its irrelevant. Alcohol impairs judgement. Thats an undisputed fact of life. Just because he judged he was fit to drive does not make it so. Nor should it somehow excuse the charges.

its irrelevant in that he did wrong either way it is not irrelevant in that it is two very different cases if he got up knew he was pissed and drove or got up figured that the alcohol was out of his system and therefore drove believing he was under the limit

Like I said above, theres no situation where you are not at fault for colliding into another car in front of you.

like i said above you are wrong unless the rules of the road in ireland have changed drastically since i left the insurance industry

edit: oh and just in case you think this case isnt tainted with backhand deals and corruption

someone said that he got more than the maximum sentence for the crime he pleaded guilty to if this is the case then it is not his fault or the judges fault but the systems fault and has little to do with backhand deals and corruption

easyeason3

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

So why don't we just leave all the manslaughter cases out of jail, cause, you know, the poor diddums all feel bad enough already??

When did I say or even hint at that?
I'm trying to be realistic about it, if there was room in prisons for him then he would have locked up but the fact of the matter is that there is no room & no alternative.

Everyone here is very quick to run him into the ground, quite justified, but whether you realise it or not we have all been guilty of drink driving unless of course you are a teetotal.

Also I have seen first hand the affect it has on the person responsible for causing death by drink driving. So that was why I said he has a life sentence, I didn't say he should be let off scot free but I was raising the point that he will have to live with what he has done so while he may have escaped a prison sentence he still has to live with what he has done.

The two people I know that were in a similar situation have both previously said that getting a prison sentence would be a small relief for their conscience. They would have felt that they were doing something to ease the pain of the victims family.

Ann22

About 20yrs ago a lovely chap I was friendly with was killed by a drunk driver, he was taking something out of his car boot and a drunk northern driver smashed into him...leaving his pregnant young wife to have their baby alone. A school mate of my sister's was also killed by a drunk driver in a hit and run in Dublin a few years before that, 18yrs of age she was, at college on the threshold of life.
I hate drunken drivers. When a person gets into a car under the influence they have a lethal weapon in their hands. No use saying 'they didn't set out to do it'...my a*se.

PeakOutput

just saw your edit there overheal about the hitting from behind

if the car with the boy in it was established on the road and he hit them from behind obviously he was at fault as i said i didnt read the articles im just going on the details in this thread

Overheal

PeakOutput wrote: »

im sorry overheal you are 100% wrong, i worked in an irish insurance claims department for 2 years or thereabouts deciding on who was at fault for accidents on a daily basis. if you pull out from a side road and a car on the road you are pulling out onto hits you it is YOUR fault for not making sure the way was clear before you pulled out. i would be suprised if this was not the case in america too but that is not were my experience lies.

you are right that you are always at fault if you run into the BACK of someone accept in one or maybe two rare circumstances which relate to my above paragraph but they are very rare occurences

If that happened, then it would indeed but a grey area on this case alright.

In which case though aren't I only 2% wrong? Give me credit like.

its irrelevant in that he did wrong either way it is not irrelevant in that it is two very different cases if he got up knew he was pissed and drove or got up figured that the alcohol was out of his system and therefore drove believing he was under the limit

Sure then lets just let everyone get away with murder (literally) if they plead they THOUGHT they were sober. Ah sure I didnt THINK the bullet was gonna kill him Oh Well Then here have a lolly and dont do it again. I didnt think I was going to run over a schoolgirl if I took my eyes off the road to send a text either..

someone said that he got more than the maximum sentence for the crime he pleaded guilty to if this is the case then it is not his fault or the judges fault but the systems fault and has little to do with backhand deals and corruption

If that is the sentence that fits the crime in Ireland, something is wrong somewhere.

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

If that happened, then it would indeed but a grey area on this case alright.

In which case though aren't I only 2% wrong? Give me credit like.

ah ok ill give you that

Sure then lets just let everyone get away with murder (literally) if they plead they THOUGHT they were sober. Ah sure I didnt THINK the bullet was gonna kill him Oh Well Then here have a lolly and dont do it again. I didnt think I was going to run over a schoolgirl if I took my eyes off the road to send a text either..

im not saying he should get away with anything i am saying that i imagine intent or lack of it is quite often taken into account during sentencing

If that is the sentence that fits the crime in Ireland, something is wrong somewhere.

absolutely agree

piby

If he'd been sober and it was an accident then you could understand but he was under the influence so he should be properly punished regardless of whether or not he meant it. The sick part is that if, for example, if he'd have killed in an intruder breaking into his home he'd have probably got 10 years!

The justice system has proved time and again that it is incompetent, inconsistent and completey unable to deal with the variety of growing crime in this country :mad:

Overheal

PeakOutput wrote: »

just saw your edit there overheal about the hitting from behind

if the car with the boy in it was established on the road and he hit them from behind obviously he was at fault as i said i didnt read the articles im just going on the details in this thread

I dont have transcripts either. When I made the post I admit the idea he pulled out of a driveway crossed my mind. Depending on the distances though he may have had time to react. Unfortunately there would be no evidence today to support whether he was 50 feet away or 500 feet away.

easyeason3 wrote: »

Everyone here is very quick to run him into the ground, quite justified, but whether you realise it or not we have all been guilty of drink driving unless of course you are a teetotal.

Unless, like me and countless other drivers, you remain vigilant and aware of the dangers, and dont get in the car when you've been drinking?

I just don't buy into the idea that its a stunning coincidence that he was inebriated when he got into the accident.

im not saying he should get away with anything i am saying that i imagine intent or lack of it is quite often taken into account during sentencing

To a degree. But you also have to take in severity of the accident and BAC. I mean yeah, thats why theres a low minimum of 1 year on US Felony DUI, but I imagine thats for cases where there is plenty of shared blame (ie. 2 drunk drivers smash into eachother, playing chicken). I guess we cant say without the details of the case - are those available? Guessing no. But if youre to believe the emotion surrounding the case he definitely deserved several years of confinement and a hefty fine.

Carlow52

DaDumTish wrote: »

" forensic difficultys involved "

ie

he has mates in high places who quashed the lot for him.

a rule for those who have and those who have not .

like this
In 1985 Fr.Niall Molloy was found dead in suspicious circumstances in a friend's house. He body was found in the blood spattered bedroom of Richard and Theresa Flynn in their house in Clara ,Co Offaly ( Brian Cowen's home town) He lay beside an eight foot long streak of his own blood, his face deeply cut
There were other marks on Niall's body which suggested that he was kicked as he lay on the ground " possibly by someone with a Shod foot" A man was eventually charged..and Judge Frank Roe pulled rank and insisted on hearing the case ( to our surprise ) as he personally knew both my late Uncle and the accused.
Before hearing all the evidence Roe dismissed the case on the grounds that my Uncle, because of his heart condition ,( Niall did not have a heart condition and no medical evidence was put forward to say he had ) could have died from a heart attack after an unfortunate row.
In a case which was to have taken at least 3 days the Jury was dismissed after 4 hours.
The inquest shortly afterwards found that Niall's death was caused by injuries to the head .
The late Veronica Guerin published a series of articles some years later in which she disclosed the fact that Roe personally knew the parties involved and the Judge had written letters to the DPP concerning the case. The first hand written letter was written by Roe to Eamon Barnes Director of Public Prosecutions before any charges had been brought . In the letter Roe stated that he knew both Fr. Molloy and the Flynns.
This act in itself is grounds for the resignation of a Judge and the DPP should not have allowed his interference .
The second letter written after the trail is his explanation (Roe's ) for his dismissal of the charges.
Veronica based her articles on information she had obtained from reading a copy of the DPP file on my uncles case which had been stolen from the DPP's office and was being held in a Solicitor's office in Dublin.
Roe when contacted by Veronica said
"They were lovely people all of them. God bless them all"
"I got a terrible time from the press then. It was awful. Now I have nothing else to say"
He refused to comment on why he sent the hand written letter to the to the DPP, and would not elaborate on his associations with Fr. Molloy and the Flynns
Why did Roe write the letters ? And why did the DPP allow this ?
One can only speculate as to why this was allowed to happen who was being protected ??

Privately Legal people Tut, Tut and say that it was terrible and that it "couldn't happen again these days". I Wonder !!!

Publicly none of them has had the guts to do or say anything about it.

There are many other twists and turns in our case. Niall's Solicitor Liam Lysaght denied he had ever acted for him and then acted for the man accused of causing Niall's death. He eventually appeared before The Law Society Disciplinary Committee and refused to hand over Niall's files to the Molloy family
In March 1993 Liam Lysaght was found guilty of Professional Misconduct, censured and fined £500 by the acting President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Costello. Mr. Lysaght , he said, had been found guilty on evidence tendered to an inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society, and confirmed by the Law Society itself, of not only being inaccurate but stating an untruth; and having documents before him, he must have known it was untrue that he had not acted for a partnership involving Fr Molloy and Mrs Theresa Flynn.

Shortly after the case Conor Lenihan felt compelled to write a flattering lengthy profile of Roe in a National paper. The only reference he made in the article to Roe's bizarre decision was :-
"The name of Frank Roe, the presiding judge in the controversial Fr. Niall Molloy - Richard Flynn case, is one which immediately invokes expressions of affection in legal
circles"

Gardai added new statements at the inquest under the instructions of a superior.

A book was published by The Kerryman with a blaze of publicity ...only to be withdrawn after three days without explanation.
The case still crops up in the media from time to time. In a recent interview with John Gilligan in Hot Press Magazine Gilligan claims that copies of the stolen DPP file are still in circulation and being used as a means of resisting arrest.

Whenever the subject comes up in conversation people say to me "forget about it, they were yesterdays people" .
To the family the hurt is as if this corruption of justice only happened yesterday"
The family of Niall Molloy still want answers

baglady

easyeason3 wrote: »

Everyone here is very quick to run him into the ground, quite justified, but whether you realise it or not we have all been guilty of drink driving unless of course you are a teetotal.

Are you for real? Based on what???? :rolleyes:

easyeason3

baglady wrote: »

Are you for real? Based on what???? :rolleyes:

Go for a night out, have a few drinks, leave the car where it's parked & get a taxi home.
Get up the next morning, go collect the car & depending on the voulme of drink you have had the night before chances are if you were bagged you would still be over the limit.
People have become more concious of it since the Guards have started bagging people the morning after but the majority of us would have been guilty of it at some stage.
Granted it's not in the same league as hopping into the car after leaving the pub but if you had been involved in an accident you would have been branded a drink driver.

Ulysses Gaze

Suspended Sentence. The two most popular words in the Irish legal system :rolleyes:

Mr.Lizard

Go for a night out, have a few drinks, leave the car where it's parked & get a taxi home.
Get up the next morning, go collect the car & depending on the voulme of drink you have had the night before chances are if you were bagged you would still be over the limit.
People have become more concious of it since the Guards have started bagging people the morning after but the majority of us would have been guilty of it at some stage.
Granted it's not in the same league as hopping into the car after leaving the pub but if you had been involved in an accident you would have been branded a drink driver.

Typical Irish attitude to the law. "Shure it's the law but it doesn't count as long as I the individual reckon it won't cause any harm."

Starts at an early age with our attitude to littering & walking across the road on a red light, ends somewhere between a blood splattered two-car pile-up.

nlgbbbblth

genericguy wrote: »

the lesson here i think is that if someone does something to you, get revenge yourself. sure you'll only be smacked on the back of the hand for murder in this backward kip.

no you wouldn't

instigators sometimes get off lightly, retaliators don't.

as for Halvey's "connections"

if he was a skanger as opposed to a rugby player there would be far less complaining about the sentence.

Mr.Lizard

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Suspended Sentence. The two most popular words in the Irish legal system :rolleyes:

He deserved a suspended sentence. Suspended from a noose.