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
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,106 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    rovert wrote: »
    What if the judge the didnt fully believe that the arsonist and the car dealer were acting independently of each other?
    Irrelevant. It's Law.

    Meaning you work on facts and evidence. Did the Defendant or the Plaintiff establish Collusion between the Arsonist and the Landowner? Did the state or the AGS?

    The Judge, or even the Jury, do not have license to fill their verdicts or sentencing with What If's.

    To do so undermines the entire principle of having Law or Trials or Hearings.


  • Options
    #93
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Ireland definitely needs some mechanism whereby judges can be sacked.

    I know theres the whole issue of judicial independence but wouldnt one way around this be for a system whereby panels of judges could rule on the dismissal of one of their peers on the recommendation of the Minister for Justice ?


  • Options
    #94
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    No, I'm not.

    (a) you claimed it was a fair decision..



    and (b) when asked why you thought it was fair that you started inventing your own possible scenarios..

    Are you this desperate? You are refusing to move on the issue I clearly made two separate points...amazing.
    prinz wrote: »
    See now? I think it was fair..... Why?...Because it's possible something else happened we don't know about.

    I guess this the point you re-post my posts in an out of context manner. I guess you don’t understand the phrase "what if." Hint: it is not an explaination.
    kippy wrote: »
    They guy burned down a business on top of 12 previous convictions - what do you know that we dont?
    Theres stories in the paper every week about guys on 10+ convictions getting off very lightly on the case in question.
    I dont particularily think this is justice.
    You make one or two minor mistakes - okay, bit of leniency - but 10+??

    Again you don’t know the full story on his background.
    conorhal wrote: »
    I don't know how many times you have to get mugged in the street by this guy while he's on probation or out on bail before the penny drops.... :rolleyes:

    Seriously what are you ****eing on about here?
    Overheal wrote: »
    Irrelevant. It's Law.

    Meaning you work on facts and evidence. Did the Defendant or the Plaintiff establish Collusion between the Arsonist and the Landowner? Did the state or the AGS?

    The Judge, or even the Jury, do not have license to fill their verdicts or sentencing with What If's.

    To do so undermines the entire principle of having Law or Trials or Hearings.

    Key word in what I said: fully

    Please don’t be prinz 2.0 here.


  • Options
    #95
    nlgbbbblth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,668 ✭✭✭nlgbbbblth


    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.

    Yes.

    Any agree that coming from a disadvantaged background can swing things in one's favour when before a judge?


  • Options
    #96
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Ireland definitely needs some mechanism whereby judges can be sacked.

    I know theres the whole issue of judicial independence but wouldnt one way around this be for a system whereby panels of judges could rule on the dismissal of one of their peers on the recommendation of the Minister for Justice ?

    I say we go with the American system of elected judges, that way I can vote for the right honorable 'Hang em' Flog 'em' to dispense justice in my district and the D4 handwringing liberals can vote for Judge Bleedin' Heart if they want to, then all the crims can restrict themselves to committing crimes in a district in which they know they can get a sympathetic hearing...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rovert wrote: »
    Are you this desperate? You are refusing to move on the issue I clearly made two separate points...amazing..

    It wasn't two separate points. You said you thought the verdict was fair and then when asked to explain your point of view you went of on hypothetical possible scenarios.

    There is no what if when you've already declared the verdict to be fair.

    You could argue perhaps the verdict was based on x, y or z possibilities.. and in those contexts it could fair. You cannot in all serious say it's fair and then use imagined scenarios why it is. There is a huge difference.


  • Options
    #98
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    rovert wrote: »
    So what was the moviation behind it then?
    it was clearly pre meditated, you don't just walk up to a dealership and burn it down. you also don't need a motivation, the evidence is blindingly clear regardless


    Rovert - do you know the accused or related to him or something?
    There is no case what so ever for defending his actions or the extremely light sentence he got, ie nothing

    either that or you're just trolling for the sake of it


  • Options
    #99
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    conorhal wrote: »
    I say we go with the American system of elected judges, that way I can vote for the right honorable 'Hang em' Flog 'em' to dispense justice in my district

    Thats why we dont have elected judges
    conorhal wrote: »
    and the D4 handwringing liberals
    FAIL !

    conorhal wrote: »
    can vote for Judge Bleedin' Heart

    Neither 'Hang em' Flog 'em' or Bleedin' Heart should be judges

    Mr/Ms Simple Common sense is the only person for the job


  • Options
    #100
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    It wasn't two separate points. You said you thought the verdict was fair and then when asked to explain your point of view you went of on hypothetical possible scenarios.

    You realise now silly this sentence sounds? Please stop.
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    it was clearly pre meditated, you don't just walk up to a dealership and burn it down. you also don't need a motivation, the evidence is blindingly clear regardless

    Im glad youve realised this much.
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Rovert - do you know the accused or related to him or something?

    Not in anyway
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    There is no case what so ever for defending his actions or the extremely light sentence he got, ie nothing

    There is a case of "defending" him (exactly where have defended, claiming he was part of an insurance fraud is hardly defending him) unless you are so twisted you think a suspended sentence is nothing I suppose.
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    either that or you're just trolling for the sake of it

    All because I think there isnt enough information to go on for people to make the wacky statements they are making?


  • Options
    #101
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rovert wrote: »
    You realise now silly this sentence sounds? Please stop.

    No, please explain? Why is the verdict fair without using any possible scenarios?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    rovert wrote: »
    What if the judge the didnt fully believe that the arsonist and the car dealer were acting independently of each other?
    Then the Gardai would be investigating a fraud case as well. There's no indication of that, and the information would be public realm so if it was the case, it'd be i nthe papers.


  • Options
    #103
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    rovert wrote: »
    Im glad youve realised this much.
    I was well aware of this from the start

    rovert wrote: »
    There is a case of "defending" him (exactly where have defended, claiming he was part of an insurance fraud is hardly defending him) unless you are so twisted you think a suspended sentence is nothing I suppose.

    a suspended sentence IS pretty much nothing, especially for such a crime!

    rovert wrote: »
    All because I think there isnt enough information to go on for people to make the wacky statements they are making?

    there is plenty of information. CCTV proof, phone records and an admittance by the accused and a previous criminal record. what more do you need? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #104
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    No, please explain?

    Me floating a possible scenario isnt my explaination why I think the judgement is fair or unfair. Can we get past that barrier first?
    Nevore wrote: »
    Then the Gardai would be investigating a fraud case as well. There's no indication of that, and the information would be public realm so if it was the case, it'd be i nthe papers.

    Of course the insurance company would as well.

    The point that I making is that at least by the court report a motive is missing. The car dealer in the story doesnt make a single comment on the arsonist or the circumstances of why the fire happened or may have happened. I think a poster earlier has the most logical guess that the dealer didnt pay protection money hence the repeated attacks.
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    a suspended sentence IS pretty much nothing, especially for such a crime!

    k
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    there is plenty of information. CCTV proof, phone records and an admittance by the accused and a previous criminal record. what more do you need? :rolleyes:

    To quote yourself I was well aware of this from the start.

    Again the moviation remains unclear.....


  • Options
    #105
    Bleedin Delish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭Bleedin Delish


    sad fact is that it costs too much to lock some scumbag up for couple of years and so judges need to look for excuses not to do it. Its all bull**** cause no doubt he will be involved in loads more crimes over the next few years cause he knows he can get off so lightly


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rovert, keep posting.. I like feeling smarter than people.


  • Options
    #107
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Rovert, keep posting.. I like feeling smarter than people.

    Great post. :rolleyes:

    Yet Im the one trolling, sorry to rain on the rabble, rabble parade.


  • Options
    #108
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Lads, keep it friendly, please.


  • Options
    #109
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    rovert wrote: »
    Great post. :rolleyes

    Yet Im the one trolling,

    If I am honest I would have to say yes and not just on this thread but repeatedly for at least the last few weeks.


  • Options
    #110
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Morlar wrote: »
    If I am honest I would have to say yes and not just on this thread but repeatedly for at least the last few weeks.

    How is suggesting that we likely dont have the full facts of the case trolling exactly?

    Jumping all over cases causes threads like this:

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055910434


  • Options
    #111
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Ok, we leave this here.

    If anyone has a problem with a post, report it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    rovert wrote: »
    A thought it was a fair decision.

    Obviously there is a bit more to the case than stated.

    is it an unwritten rule of boards that there has to be at least one person to defend the indefensible?


  • Options
    #113
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    aDeener wrote: »
    is it an unwritten rule of boards that there has to be at least one person to defend the indefensible?

    Where have I defended the arsonists actions? This is getting silly now.


  • Options
    #114
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,106 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    rovert wrote: »
    Key word in what I said: fully
    Yes, I read. My point stands. The Judge has no license to lighten/stricten her sentence because she chooses to imagine there is a conspiracy going on. Judges Judge based on Sworn Testimony and Evidence Exhibited. And if they don't, then they're making assumptions. And if thats the case, they are undermining a pivotal function of the Justice System.

    Though furthermore why would she have Lightened the sentence in your scenario?

    Ridiculous.
    Please don’t be prinz 2.0 here.
    Don't be an ass.


  • Options
    #115
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Legit tired of repeating myself here.


  • Options
    #116
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,297 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    rovert wrote: »
    Again the moviation remains unclear.....
    Why do you need motivation? If say, the motivation was that the garage sold the arsonist a dodgy car, does this mean I am allowed to burn down any MacDonalds that serves me a substandard happy meal?


  • Options
    #117
    Hedman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭Hedman


    I could be way off the mark here but why is his motive relevant once he has pleaded guilty?


  • Options
    #118
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    the_syco wrote: »
    Why do you need motivation? If say, the motivation was that the garage sold the arsonist a dodgy car, does this mean I am allowed to burn down any MacDonalds that serves me a substandard happy meal?
    Hedman wrote: »
    I could be way off the mark here but why is his motive relevant once he has pleaded guilty?

    Oh god

    It is a consideration in the sentencing


  • Options
    #119
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    rovert wrote: »
    Oh god

    It is a consideration in the sentencing

    why? In this case it is totally irrelevant. there is no motivation worse than any other for doing what he did


  • Options
    #120
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    why? In this case it is totally irrelevant. there is no motivation worse than any other for doing what he did

    If for example it was heavily intimated that the arsonist was threatened into doing it by a third party. You would consider that totally irrelevant. :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    rovert wrote: »
    If for example it was heavily intimated that the arsonist was threatened into doing it by a third party. You would consider that totally irrelevant. :eek:

    maybe Jesus told him too...

    why don't you stop making random situations up for the sake of it. there no indication of that from the case


Advertisement