Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Suspended sentence for burning down a car dealership

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    how can you think that was a fair result?

    Caught burning down a building. history of criminal activity. walks away scot free...

    I bet if it was me, from a middle class family, no convictions etc it would be jail time cos I have no sob story to tell.

    Nevore wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it's within the bounds of the law to jail the fúcker. Just because there's an allowance for suspended sentences doesn't mean it should have been used this time.

    What if the judge the didnt fully believe that the arsonist and the car dealer were acting independently of each other?


  • Options
    #33
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    I bet if it was me, from a middle class family, no convictions etc it would be jail time cos I have no sob story to tell.

    Except for your addiction to cookies.


  • Options
    #34
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Except for your addiction to cookies.

    thats fully under control...
    I swear...


  • Options
    #35
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    rovert wrote: »
    What if the judge the didnt fully believe that the arsonist and the car dealer were acting independently of each other?

    why would that make a difference, its still arson and then its insurance fraud also and still a serious crime worthy of a lot of jail time.


  • Options
    #36
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    why would that make a difference, its still arson and then its insurance fraud also and still a serious crime worthy of a lot of jail time.

    It makes a difference to the sentence obviously.

    Again my reading of the summary the Judge had difficulty establishing the motive.

    Ok lads you can go back to your Grrr Irish Legal system Grrr meme now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    maninasia
    Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    orourkeda wrote: »
    It's npt the judges fault alone. They are working within the bounds of the law. This is the real problem.

    I'm pretty sure the law says JAILTIME for arson and property damage. But sure he came from a 'broken home'. A joke...


  • Options
    #38
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    rovert wrote: »
    Again my reading of the summary the Judge had difficulty establishing the motive.

    filthy scumbag who thought it'd be a laugh. Seems to be the motive for a lot of crimes these days.


  • Options
    #39
    Greyfox
    Registered Users Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Theirs too many lenient judges out their and their ruining the country. I don't care if jails are full, build new ones and I'm pissed off with the completely overused Johnny came from a poor backround defence.

    The judges will never change because Ireland is full of bra**dead muppets who believe it's best to let scumbags off lightly in the hope that they don't commit crime again rather then teaching them a harsh lesson which will make damn sure they don't do it again. Scumbags out their know in advance that they can expect major leniency the first time they get caught commiting a crime, our legal system sends out a very clear message that if it's your first offence then it's not a big deal


  • Options
    #40
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rovert wrote: »
    It makes a difference to the sentence obviously.Again my reading of the summary the Judge had difficulty establishing the motive.Ok lads you can go back to your Grrr Irish Legal system Grrr meme now.

    If there was significant doubt or inconsistencies with the motive and background the prosecution wouldn't have proceeded.


  • Options
    #41
    Dilynnio
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭Dilynnio


    Was he from South County Dublin??!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    plein de force
    Registered Users Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭plein de force


    that's all he got?

    /off to bill cullens with petrol and matches :pac:


  • Options
    #43
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Dilynnio wrote: »
    Was he from South County Dublin??!!:D

    FFS did you even read the first post
    Patrick Harcourt (22), of Dunne Street Flats, Dublin 1


  • Options
    #44
    joker77
    Registered Users Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭joker77


    Anyone know that background as to why he set fire to the place? Wasn't mentioned in the article I read, which I found odd.


  • Options
    #45
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    If there was significant doubt or inconsistencies with the motive and background the prosecution wouldn't have proceeded.

    Christ again:
    What if the judge the didnt fully believe that the arsonist and the car dealer were acting independently of each other?
    joker77 wrote: »
    Anyone know that background as to why he set fire to the place? Wasn't mentioned in the article I read, which I found odd.

    Forget that all the kewl kids are jumping to conclusions. GO!


  • Options
    #46
    Dilynnio
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭Dilynnio


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    FFS did you even read the first post

    Well I am glad they are spreading the injustice across the other side of the Liffey so!:D


  • Options
    #47
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    The only explanation I can think of is that it was one of Bill Cullen's dealerships, in which case, the sentence was quite harsh. ;)


  • Options
    #48
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    pickarooney wrote: »
    Can the victim not take civil action against the criminal and sue him for the damages? He'd be guaranteed to win and should be able to get his wages garnished. He'd at least get something back and the arsonist wouldn't be costing the state anything while he effectively worked for the victim for a few years.


    Well he could, and he'd win, but I seriously doubt Mr. Harcourt would have the funds available to pay out the award... So in essence it would be pointless.

    May as well get him locked up, let him build himself up to be a much stronger, fitter, leaner arson machine while he's at it. Oh, and feed him and let him watch tele.
    What if the judge the didnt fully believe that the arsonist and the car dealer were acting independently of each other?

    Rovert - are you serious?? Why would the judge come to such a conclusion?? That's madness lol

    And surely, if lets say that was the case, it would have been used in Mr. Harcourts defence, and the garage owner would have been convicted.

    Don't be so silly.


  • Options
    #49
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rovert wrote: »
    Christ again:What if the judge the didnt fully believe that the arsonist and the car dealer were acting independently of each other?

    If the judge had real reason to believe that they weren't then case would not have proceeded as it did.

    Even if the judge didn't fully believe that then a suspended sentence after multiple convictions is still ridiculous.
    rovert wrote: »
    Forget that all the kewl kids are jumping to conclusions. GO!

    What like the conclusion that the sentence was fair based on what if and imagination? :confused:


  • Options
    #50
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,331 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Time to bring in the three strikes law so you get life on the third conviction. That would cut crime figures massively


  • Options
    #51
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    Time to bring in the three strikes law so you get life on the third conviction. That would cut crime figures massively

    Are you sure about that, or did you just make that up? Because when they brought it in, in New York, the crime rate actually rose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    Are you sure about that, or did you just make that up? Because when they brought it in, in New York, the crime rate actually rose.


    Thats because they all wanted to get to prison to see their mates :)


  • Options
    #53
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Sack the judge...oh wait, you can't do that in Ireland :mad:


  • Options
    #54
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    If the judge had real reason to believe that they weren't then case would not have proceeded as it did.

    What like the conclusion that the sentence was fair based on what if and imagination? :confused:

    Wrong on both points. Obviously there was enough evidence to bring it to trail. Im referring to the judge's personal deliberation.


  • Options
    #55
    Degsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,397 ✭✭✭✭Degsy


    Lando Griffin wrote: »
    If he burned down her house, would the sentence be the same for this person of good employment record, his standing in the community, his early plea of guilty and testimonials to his good character.

    Then in the next paragraph it says he told a pack of lies to the cops and tried to use his girlfriend as an alibi.
    ****er should be forced to pay everry penny of that damage back by being made to sell his organs.
    I presume his liver would be no use to anybody though.


  • Options
    #56
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Degsy wrote: »
    I presume his liver would be no use to anybody though.

    or his brain


  • Options
    #57
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rovert wrote: »
    Im referring to the judge's personal deliberation.

    The judge doesn't get to indulge their imagination in what might have actually happened. The judge has the right to dismiss a case if there are serious doubts about the prosecution case.

    Again even if the judge thought that there was something untoward about the dealership owners that has no bearing on sentencing the arsonist.


  • Options
    #58
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    Time to bring in the three strikes law so you get life on the third conviction. That would cut crime figures massively

    You don't need a three strikes law, you just need to make sure that persistent offenders cannot recieve suspended sentences or early release. 11 previous and this pr**k has a good character reference? :mad:


  • Options
    #59
    blaze1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭blaze1


    His ma died in 2001, surely he should be over that by now.

    Who didnt have a hard up bringing in this day and age. He's probobly played GTA and listened to m&m at some stage as well..


  • Options
    #60
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    The judge doesn't get to indulge their imagination in what might have actually happened. The judge has the right to dismiss a case if there are serious doubts about the prosecution case.

    Again even if the judge thought that there was something untoward about the dealership owners that has no bearing on sentencing the arsonist.

    I guess you dont just get. Not everything is black and white, clear cut. There is a range of acceptability in all decisions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rovert wrote: »
    I guess you dont just get. Not everything is black and white, clear cut. There is a range of acceptability in all decisions.

    Yeah silly me. I don't get it. I just don't 'get' that the sentence is perfectly fair, because maybe in the judge's personal deliberations, there might have been a possible ulterior motive in an attempt at an insurance scam.

    It's not like anyone would have thought of that say while investigating the matter.


Advertisement