Larry Murphy can roam free but women can't defend themselves?

Danniboo

Hi,

I'm sure everyone is as outraged as I am about the release of Larry Murphy on "good behaviour".:mad: It just got me thinking, it is illegal to carry pepper spray/mace etc in this country yet we are expected to walk the streets with this monster roaming around, what are peoples views on this? Do you think women should be allowed to carry this to defend themselves, would you carry it anyways regardless of it been banned?

monkeypants

We're sending him to Rome now? Outrageous! Shocking! Who's paying for this?

drkpower

Two issues there:

1. Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme: I assume you are just venting becasue the guy got released after 10ish years when you feel he deserved longer. I think he deserveed longer too. But the Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme is a good thing, even for the worst offendors; you need to reward good behaviour in prison, otherwise the places will be impossible to run. Your gripe should be with the length of the sentence, not with the 'good behaviour' bit.

2. Pepper-spray/Mace: The principle of not letting people carry 'weapons' is a good one; im sure you can appreciate that it wont just be vulnerable women who will be carrying mace around if it is legal. Second, the use of weapons by victims has been shown, time and time again, to, more often and not, result in the victim being injured much more significantly than they would have been otherwise. Is that the result you are looking for?

These are complex issues, but which are almost always dealt with in a knee-jerk manner, sadly.

Danniboo

drkpower wrote: »

Two issues there:

1. Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme: I assume you are just venting becasue the guy got released after 10ish years when you feel he deserved longer. I think he deserveed longer too. But the Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme is a good thing, even for the worst offendors; you need to reward good behaviour in prison, otherwise the places will be impossible to run. Your gripe should be with the length of the sentence, not with the 'good behaviour' bit.

Does the Good Behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme not state that the criminal must participate in Counselling/Treatment? I don't think he desereved longer, he deserved to stay for life, not the poxy life sentence either life as in until he drops dead.

2. Pepper-spray/Mace: The principle of not letting people carry 'weapons' is a good one; im sure you can appreciate that it wont just be vulnerable women who will be carrying mace around if it is legal. Second, the use of weapons by victims has been shown, time and time again, to, more often and not, result in the victim being injured much more significantly than they would have been otherwise. Is that the result you are looking for?

Of course that's not the result i'm looking for, as someone who goes walking quiet a lot and now can't go on my normal lovely countryside route because scum like this is roaming the streets I would feel happier knowing that I had some form of protection.


These are complex issues, but which are almost always dealt with in a knee-jerk manner, sadly.

It's so ironic, stuff like this is illegal because as you've stated the victim can end up injured, people can use it as weapons, yet we'll let Larry Murphy roam the streets because that won't endanger anyone :mad:

drkpower

Danniboo wrote: »

It's so ironic, stuff like this is illegal because as you've stated the victim can end up injured, people can use it as weapons, yet we'll let Larry Murphy roam the streets because that won't endanger anyone :mad:

Yes; life is full of balance, nuance and difficult choices. Unless you want a criminal justice system that executes offendors such as this guy or puts them in prison forever, the difficulties posed by people like Murphy walking the streets will always be there.

Do you have any suggested solutions to this or just questions?

Fuinseog

has anyone a picture of this chap? i am sure there are plenty of lookalikes.

Danniboo

drkpower wrote: »

Yes; life is full of balance, nuance and difficult choices. Unless you want a criminal justice system that executes offendors such as this guy or puts them in prison forever, the difficulties posed by people like Murphy walking the streets will always be there.

There's your answer right there!

irishh_bob

Danniboo wrote: »

Hi,

I'm sure everyone is as outraged as I am about the release of Larry Murphy on "good behaviour".:mad: It just got me thinking, it is illegal to carry pepper spray/mace etc in this country yet we are expected to walk the streets with this monster roaming around, what are peoples views on this? Do you think women should be allowed to carry this to defend themselves, would you carry it anyways regardless of it been banned?

who cares if its legal or not , are you that respectfull of the law that you would put your personal safety at risk , no judge or jury ( even in this country ) would convict someone of hurting that guy

Danniboo

irishh_bob wrote: »

who cares if its legal or not , are you that respectfull of the law that you would put your personal safety at risk , no judge or jury ( even in this country ) would convict someone of hurting that guy

Well this was along the lines I was thinking, would a girl out walking on her own really be prosecuted for carrying this on her. I've always been respectful of the law but now I wonder why?

drkpower

Danniboo wrote: »

There's your answer right there!

Fair enough; I'm very sympathetic to the view that certain of the worst offendors should be executed or spend the rest of their lives in a pretty hellish version of what we now call jail. Of course, the opractical realities of the death penalty is that it probably necessitates our exit from the EU (not sure i want it that much) and the imprisonment for life of serious offenders does change the very nature of the criminal justice system (ie. the possibility of rehabilitation is forever lost).

Once you have thought about it properly rather than had a sudden reflex reaction to this case; because laws apply to everyone. You know an 18 year old guy who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is a rapist too...? Execute him?

28064212

Danniboo wrote: »

Well this was along the lines I was thinking, would a girl out walking on her own really be prosecuted for carrying this on her. I've always been respectful of the law but now I wonder why?

If she uses it in self-defence (assuming it doesn't just enrage the attacker and cause her to get hurt worse)? She'll probably get a slap on the wrist. If she panics and sprays someone who was "looking at her funny"? A lot more

And since you're advocating allowing people to carry weapons, what about the teenage scumbag who's going to carry it around for use in fights? In fact, what about the rapist who's going to carry it to make it easier to incapacitate victims?

Danniboo

whippet

Danniboo wrote: »

Well this was along the lines I was thinking, would a girl out walking on her own really be prosecuted for carrying this on her. I've always been respectful of the law but now I wonder why?

every day you are are walking amongst convicted criminals from petty thiefs, violent maniacs to sex offenders .... you are just not aware of them. They will have done there sentances for the crimes they were prosecuted for and are back on the street. The chances are these repeat offenders will have other crimes that they have not been charged or caught for.

Yet, due to a massive media storm regading a single individual suddenly we are been asked to live in fear and question the 'system'.

The reality of the situation is, LArry Murphy is one of hundreds of violent offenders who are released from prision every year after completing their sentance ...why the sudden up roar ?

I don't buy the nonsense that is drummed up to justify the rag top reporting about the remission of the end of the 15 year sentance. In five years time he would have gotten out after serving the full sentance and would still be the same man ....

Regardless of how you view this man, he has served his sentance which was imposed on him by the judicial system of the state and thus is entitled to live in free society. Its not nice, mainly due to fact that most media and 'guarda sources (to the media) have more or less convicted him of the 'missing cases', but you have to have a fair and equitable justice system.

There is a guy living up the road from my parents who is a total maniac and will probably end up killing someone in a fight or attack in the next number of years due to a drink problem. He has done a couple of stints in prison for petty things like assault, criminal damage etc .... are you suggesting we lock people up because we think they may do something in the future?

Larry Murphy will be watched very closly by all and sundry especially the guards, personally I feel the likelyhood of an other offence similar to his conviction is unlikely.

Ger Colleran of the Daily Star and others of his ilk have a lot to answer for, they are driving a mass public hysteria which isn't needed. The talk of people carrying mace and pepper spray incase they come accross one particualr individual ..considering there are thousands of other maniacs walking the streets the lenght and breath of the country.

Danniboo

drkpower wrote: »

Fair enough; I'm very sympathetic to the view that certain of the worst offendors should be executed or spend the rest of their lives in a pretty hellish version of what we now call jail. Of course, the opractical realities of the death penalty is that it probably necessitates our exit from the EU (not sure i want it that much) and the imprisonment for life of serious offenders does change the very nature of the criminal justice system (ie. the possibility of rehabilitation is forever lost).

Once you have thought about it properly rather than had a sudden reflex reaction to this case; because laws apply to everyone. You know an 18 year old guy who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is a rapist too...? Execute him?

There's a big difference between the 2 examples you've given. Larry Murphy is a monster he's murdered numerous women. The girl in question he repeatedly raped, put her in his boot, beat her then went home and played happy families with his wife and child. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you think they are our choices, public safety or being in the EU, I think i'll choose public safety.

Canis Lupus

Danniboo wrote: »

There's a big difference between the 2 examples you've given. Larry Murphy is a monster he's murdered numerous women. The girl in question he repeatedly raped, put her in his boot, beat her then went home and played happy families with his wife and child. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you think they are our choices, public safety or being in the EU, I think i'll choose public safety.

If it was allowed and I give you a gun will you kill him then or do you prefer other people to do your killing so everyone can stay safe?

I was going to start another thread on this. I have no sympathy for the man but at what point is a persons 'debt to society' considered paid?

Danniboo

whippet wrote: »

every day you are are walking amongst convicted criminals from petty thiefs, violent maniacs to sex offenders .... you are just not aware of them. They will have done there sentances for the crimes they were prosecuted for and are back on the street. The chances are these repeat offenders will have other crimes that they have not been charged or caught for.

Yet, due to a massive media storm regading a single individual suddenly we are been asked to live in fear and question the 'system'.

The reality of the situation is, LArry Murphy is one of hundreds of violent offenders who are released from prision every year after completing their sentance ...why the sudden up roar ?

I don't buy the nonsense that is drummed up to justify the rag top reporting about the remission of the end of the 15 year sentance. In five years time he would have gotten out after serving the full sentance and would still be the same man ....

Regardless of how you view this man, he has served his sentance which was imposed on him by the judicial system of the state and thus is entitled to live in free society. Its not nice, mainly due to fact that most media and 'guarda sources (to the media) have more or less convicted him of the 'missing cases', but you have to have a fair and equitable justice system.

There is a guy living up the road from my parents who is a total maniac and will probably end up killing someone in a fight or attack in the next number of years due to a drink problem. He has done a couple of stints in prison for petty things like assault, criminal damage etc .... are you suggesting we lock people up because we think they may do something in the future?

Larry Murphy will be watched very closly by all and sundry especially the guards, personally I feel the likelyhood of an other offence similar to his conviction is unlikely.

Ger Colleran of the Daily Star and others of his ilk have a lot to answer for, they are driving a mass public hysteria which isn't needed. The talk of people carrying mace and pepper spray incase they come accross one particualr individual ..considering there are thousands of other maniacs walking the streets the lenght and breath of the country.

NO I live in one of the hometown where one of the girls went missing from, and he was working in town when she went missing and we're not a million miles away from Baltinglass. He is a pure psychopath, has shown no remorce or apology for his crimes, his psychologist words were he's just waiting to get out to reoffend. When he assaulted that poor girl he spoke to her in a normal manner as if nothing had happened, he's a monster.

whippet

Danniboo wrote: »

Larry Murphy is a monster he's murdered numerous women.

While this may be the popular belief .. he hasn't been tried or convicted of any other case.

Should he be locked up based on hearsay .... is that what you are trying to justify? The Salom Witch Trial were based on hear say and I don't see history looking too kindly on the society who performed these trial by gossip.

You can be sure the garda investigators are working day and night to try and find a link to other cases with LArry Murphy, but until such a time as something happens and he is charged officially no modern society could possibly lock him up under these circumstances.

Danniboo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

If it was allowed and I give you a gun will you kill him then or do you prefer other people to do your killing so everyone can stay safe?

I was going to start another thread on this. I have no sympathy for the man but at what point is a persons 'debt to society' considered paid?

No a bullet is too good for him, he should be left to rot. I wouldn't ruin my life by shooting an animal like this. It concerns me that you think he's paid his debt to society.

drkpower

Danniboo wrote: »

There's a big difference between the 2 examples you've given. Larry Murphy is a monster he's murdered numerous women. The girl in question he repeatedly raped, put her in his boot, beat her then went home and played happy families with his wife and child. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you think they are our choices, public safety or being in the EU, I think i'll choose public safety.

I know there is a big difference. What I am challenging you to do is to consider what level of criminal deserves the death penalty (or life in prison), and what level of criminal deserves less.

So Murphy deserves to die?
What about:
- a guy who rapes someone after a date where both parties are very drunk
- a guy who holds up a bank?
- a guy who beats up a pensioner?
- a guy who murders a soldier who he believes is occupying his country?
- a guy who commits financial fraud resulting in massive a €50 billion loss to the exchequer and resultant enormous unemployment and misery?

Do all of them also deserve to die? If some of them dont, why not?

Danniboo

whippet wrote: »

While this may be the popular belief .. he hasn't been tried or convicted of any other case.

Should he be locked up based on hearsay .... is that what you are trying to justify? The Salom Witch Trial were based on hear say and I don't see history looking too kindly on the society who performed these trial by gossip.

You can be sure the garda investigators are working day and night to try and find a link to other cases with LArry Murphy, but until such a time as something happens and he is charged officially no modern society could possibly lock him up under these circumstances.

Has he ever denied it or defended himself?

rilester

What is all the fuss about, Larry Murphy Killed no body, he has served his time and should now be left alone, all this media frenzy is creating a witch hunt, Wayne O'Donoghue killed a child, did four years and there was nothing about him!!!! People need to move on!!

Canis Lupus

Danniboo wrote: »

No a bullet is too good for him, he should be left to rot. I wouldn't ruin my life by shooting an animal like this. It concerns me that you think he's paid his debt to society.

No I asked a question. Your view is charmingly one sided but as just demonstrated by Drkpower it's not that simple to just adopt the attitude of the baying mob.

whippet

Danniboo wrote: »

[/B]
his psychologist words were he's just waiting to get out to reoffend.

have you a link to these words? or are they just rumours?


Our society is full of rapist and sex offenders, sure to date a vast number of our community still give money to an institution that is plagued by sex offenders and criminals (the chruch)

Nevyn

He's a rapist who tried to cover up his crimes by killing his victim refused treatment in prison and has received no therapy.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0812/murphyl.html

Larry Murphy has been released from prison after serving ten-and-a-half years of a 15-year jail term for rape and attempted murder.

Murphy was collected from Arbour Hill Prison in a grey taxi and drove off without making any comment to the media.

The 45-year-old was due for early release for good behaviour.

He was convicted of the rape and attempted murder of a woman in February 2000 in the Wicklow mountains.

Murphy, a carpenter from Baltinglass, kidnapped his victim and drove into the mountains where he raped her repeatedly before he put a shopping bag over her head and forced her into the boot of his car.

The woman, then in her mid 20s, was rescued by two men who were hunting.

Murphy fled the scene and was arrested a short time later at his home.

He was released under an established practice in this country, which allows many prisoners to be granted remission equivalent to a quarter of the sentence imposed.

Murphy to be monitored

Gardaí said a management plan has been put in place to monitor the activities and whereabouts of Murphy.

They said that while he does not have to formally register his address with them for seven days, the national sex offenders management unit will know where he is and what he is doing.

The unit is responsible for the management of over 1,100 sex offenders in Ireland.

Murphy will be considered a high-risk offender and therefore will also be visited by a member of the Garda Síochána at least once a month following his release.

I think that the garda will be watching him closely as the time he got caught may not have been the first time and there was always a string of missing women running the length of the country.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bettinas-death-revives-fears-of-a-serial-killer-511118.html

"We have no crime scene. No witnesses to any kind of suspicious incident. Not even a hairclip," a senior garda source said last Tuesday as investigators faced growing fears that Bettina Poeschel had become the latest victim of a multiple killer.

"A serial killer is someone who kills at least three people in separate attacks. Before the killing there is no relationship between the killer and his victim and there is a time gap between each killing which tends to become shorter over time," Mike Barry, a British forensic psychologist said.

Homicide is the raison d'etre of a serial killer. Planning is an integral part of the ritual which is fuelled by fantasy. The typical serial killer is in his late twenties to mid-thirties when he begins to kill. Usually the multiple killer opts for the same type of victim. They can be charming and likeable and are of above-average intelligence. Also well-documented are dysfunctional childhood backgrounds with cruelty to animals noted as the first signs of the need to control a victim. The multiple killer may well be married with children, but very often their fantasy life drives them apart and they operate alone.

"Serial killers get as much pleasure escaping detection as the killing itself and so they follow developments in their crimes very closely. They may return to the scene of their crime or burial site and are likely to have been interviewed in the investigation, most particularly if it is a protracted inquiry," Mr Barry said.

Operation Trace, the special unit set up to investigate the disappearances of several women as well as unsolved murders, has already covered all the groundwork in its search for commonality in the cases of Annie McCarrick, Jo Jo Dullard, Fiona Pender, Ciara Breen, Fiona Sinnott and Deirdre Jacob. Other cases examined by the squad included those of Eva Brennan, Marie Kilmartin, Antoinette Smith, Imelda Keenan and Patricia Doherty.

The template of a likely serial killer has been processed through each case and cross-checked. With detailed assistance from members of the Behavioural Science Unit of the FBI, personnel from the Police Academy in Britain and other international experts, the unit concluded that the man it was looking for was likely to be in his late to mid-thirties, married with children and possibly without a criminal record.

At present the only compelling evidence of a multiple killer is the concealment of the bodies of the missing women; the geographical spread of the disappearances and, in particular, the absence of any similar disappearance from the Dublin area since 1993; the controlled timeframe between each disappearance and the fact that although each case has been re-examined, no new evidence has emerged.

Operation Trace concluded that commonality in the cases of Annie McCarrick, Jo Jo Dullard and Deirdre Jacob could not be ruled out.

Earlier this year a 36-year-old Co Wicklow man, Larry Murphy, was convicted for the attempted murder and rape of a 28-year-old Carlow woman in February last year.

Investigators from Operation Trace have been involved in a detailed background investigation of Larry Murphy since his arrest and conviction. The facts reveal a confident attacker who was calculating and in control.

His detailed instructions to his victim to take off her bra and shoes; his choice of sites where he conducted the rapes; his decision to use the family car and his conversations with the woman giving his children's names, and his use of the plastic bag to smother her, drew together an image of a criminal well versed in the execution of his crime. It pointed to the likelihood that he had carried out similar attacks in the past, all the while fine-tuning his planning.

When these facts were matched to the rapist's background, Larry Murphy became a prime suspect for several outstanding missing women cases. He was a carpenter who grew up in Stratford village on the outskirts of Baltinglass, Co Wicklow. His main pastime was hunting, so he became familiar with the hinterland around Baltinglass and beyond. As a local he had access to farm land to shoot pheasants and foxes. In the late 1990s he went to work on various building sites as a freelance carpenter which took him through the midlands and the east, including Kildare and Dublin. His work gave him access to buildings and homes.

Described as a loner who always seemed to be on the periphery of a group, he was known to single out women in a social setting and fix his gaze on them.

Crucially, it was because of an earlier incident involving another woman, that the two local men who stumbled upon Murphy as he tried to murder his victim were able to identify him.

Larry Murphy was in jail when Bettina disappeared. The discovery of her body takes her murder out of the outstanding cases of missing women. Concealment of bodies is the signature of the disappearances. It stands as one of the most compelling pieces of evidence of a serial killer.

As for women defending themselves, there is a lot you can do in term of being vigilant and minding yourself on a night out. If you are attacked then you can only use the amount of force needed to break free and get away.

I think that a self defence course is a lot better then mace or pepper spray in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it properly.

whippet

Thaedydal ... you have said he is a serial rapist, yet he has only been tried and convicted on one offence, therefore he isn't in the eyes of the law.

He may very well be a serial offender but until it is proved he can't be treated or tried as one.

As for refusing treatment, that is up to the offender personally.

A serial petty criminal who is addicted to drugs can refuse treatment while in prison and will be released after their sentance is finished but the fact that they refused treatment will have no bearing on their right to live freely .... until they re-offend of course.

Nevyn

Post edited.

Well the abduction, rape and attempted murder was only what he was charged with at the time and is because the victim was rescued, he didn't get around to disposing of her.

As for carrying mace there are plenty of small aerosol spray cans these days but you may have a hard time with a garda or a judge explaining why you had the miniature hairspray from your Toni and Guy gift set in your pocket.

Danniboo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

No I asked a question. Your view is charmingly one sided but as just demonstrated by Drkpower it's not that simple to just adopt the attitude of the baying mob.

Yes my view is charmingly one sided, i'm not going to get in to the right and wrong dilemma, the thread was supposed to be out women defending themselves from monsters like this and the public being protected,not who should die or who should not die, and whether I'd like to shoot them.

stop

whippet wrote: »

Thaedydal ... you have said he is a serial rapist, yet he has only been tried and convicted on one offence, therefore he isn't in the eyes of the law.

He may very well be a serial offender but until it is proved he can't be treated or tried as one.

As for refusing treatment, that is up to the offender personally.

A serial petty criminal who is addicted to drugs can refuse treatment while in prison and will be released after their sentance is finished but the fact that they refused treatment will have no bearing on their right to live freely .... until they re-offend of course.

Perhaps we need a place like this?

monkeypants

Fuinseog wrote: »

i am sure there are plenty of lookalikes.

Bad career choice.

Danniboo

Why are people so keen to defend him in regards to whether he killed the other missing women. He was convicted of beating, repeatedly raping and attempting to murder one girl, does this mean it's okay for him to be released into society and people shouldn't be weary.

dolliemix

rilester wrote: »

What is all the fuss about, Larry Murphy Killed no body, he has served his time and should now be left alone, all this media frenzy is creating a witch hunt, Wayne O'Donoghue killed a child, did four years and there was nothing about him!!!! People need to move on!!

I'd rather die than live with what he put that woman through. Your post scares me. You are trivialising the fact that he raped somebody and left her to die.

He showed no remorse.

I am a woman and I am very scared that he has been released.

If something like that happened to me, it would ruin my life and those around me.

Larry Murphy's victim and her family are reliving the inhumane ordeal that he put her through today and you wonder 'what all the fuss is about?"

Danniboo

stop wrote: »

Perhaps we need a place like this?

Exactly why can't we do that !

Danniboo

rilester wrote: »

What is all the fuss about, Larry Murphy Killed no body, he has served his time and should now be left alone, all this media frenzy is creating a witch hunt, Wayne O'Donoghue killed a child, did four years and there was nothing about him!!!! People need to move on!!

You can't be serious, what if it was your sister/girlfriend/mother/daughter/aunt?

norrie rugger

Thaedydal wrote: »

Post edited.

Well the abduction, rape and attempted murder was only what he was charged with at the time and is because the victim was rescued, he didn't get around to disposing of her.

As for carrying mace there are plenty of small aerosol spray cans these days but you may have a hard time with a garda or a judge explaining why you had the miniature hairspray from your Toni and Guy gift set in your pocket.

Plenty of mini deoderants around now days, if one were so inclined

whippet

Danniboo ... could you post a link to the quote from Murphy's councillor where Murphy said he would re-offend?

its a big claim, i'd like to see it.

Canis Lupus

Danniboo wrote: »

Why are people so keen to defend him in regards to whether he killed the other missing women. He was convicted of beating, repeatedly raping and attempting to murder one girl, does this mean it's okay for him to be released into society and people shouldn't be weary.

We're pointing out that he hasn't been convicted of murder. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system.

If you want your question answered then Mr Murphy has served his time and should be allowed to go free as dictated by the laws that govern this land and yes women (as does everybody) have the right to defend themselves.

/end thread.

Danniboo

whippet wrote: »

Danniboo ... could you post a link to the quote from Murphy's councillor where Murphy said he would re-offend?

its a big claim, i'd like to see it.

It was on the News.

Danniboo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

We're pointing out that he hasn't been convicted of murder. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system.

If you want your question answered then Mr Murphy has served his time and should be allowed to go free as dictated by the laws that govern this land and yes women (as does everybody) have the right to defend themselves.

/end thread.

Innocent is a bit of a gross exaggeration.

You agree then he should be allowed live freely after what he's done?

whippet

Danniboo wrote: »

It was on the News.

any idea of which news station? as I don't believe it to be true, if it was said I am sure the rag media would be all over it !!!

Danniboo

monkeypants wrote: »

We're sending him to Rome now? Outrageous! Shocking! Who's paying for this?

Where did it say this?

drkpower

Danniboo wrote: »

Yes my view is charmingly one sided, i'm not going to get in to the right and wrong dilemma, the thread was supposed to be out women defending themselves from monsters like this and the public being protected,not who should die or who should not die, and whether I'd like to shoot them.

So you just want to post 'why cant we do X or Y' questions which make things sound incredibly simple rather than putting in the hard work of understanding and analysing the issues, in all of their complexity.

Yes, that kind of simplistic knee-jerk analysis is what we need....:rolleyes:

Good luck - perhaps if this is the level of superficial schoolyard debate that the OP intended, this thread should be merged with the one in AH. And moved there?

Canis Lupus

Danniboo wrote: »

Innocent is a bit of a gross exaggeration.

You agree then he should be allowed live freely after what he's done?

Nope innocent is not a gross exaggeration unless you're aware of a conviction for murder that I'm not.

I personally think he needs to be monitored carefully now that he has been released.

Danniboo wrote: »

Where did it say this?

*Whooosh*

Danniboo

drkpower wrote: »

So you just want to post 'why cant we do X or Y' questions which make things sound incredibly simple rather than putting in the hard work of understanding and analysing the issues, in all of their complexity.

Yes, that kind of simplistic knee-jerk analysis is what we need....:rolleyes:

Good luck - perhaps if this is the level of superficial schoolyard debate that the OP intended, this thread should be merged with the one in AH. And moved there?

It is incredibly simple the man is a rapist/attempted murderer at very least, psychopath.

There's SFA superficial about someones sister or mother being raped or murdered and people wanting this scum behind bars. It amazes me aswell the way its all the men on this thread that are the ones playing the *innocent until proving guilty* card and *he didn't murder anyone* and *leave him alone*. That is really disturbing.

Dyr

drkpower wrote: »

Two issues there:



2. Pepper-spray/Mace: The principle of not letting people carry 'weapons' is a good one; im sure you can appreciate that it wont just be vulnerable women who will be carrying mace around if it is legal.

Who else will be carrying it around then? The people who don't care if they're breaking the law? Guess what? they'll be carrying anyway.

Second, the use of weapons by victims has been shown, time and time again, to, more often and not, result in the victim being injured much more significantly than they would have been otherwise. Is that the result you are looking for?

Where did you pick that up from? Is there any reliable research that has ever backed this up?

28064212

Danniboo wrote: »

It is incredibly simple the man is a rapist/attempted murderer at very least, psychopath.

There's SFA superficial about someones sister or mother being raped or murdered and people wanting this scum behind bars. It amazes me aswell the way its all the men on this thread that are the ones playing the *innocent until proving guilty* card and *he didn't murder anyone* and *leave him alone*. That is really disturbing.

Ehhh, unless you have some kind of magic internet tool, you have no idea of the genders of the people posting unless they've said it themselves

But since this thread was supposed to be about women defending themselves, are you going to answer these questions:
If she uses it in self-defence, are you assuming it won't just enrage the attacker and cause her to get hurt worse? What if she panics and sprays someone who was "looking at her funny"?

And since you're advocating allowing people to carry weapons, what about the teenage scumbag who's going to carry it around for use in fights? In fact, what about the rapist who's going to carry it to make it easier to incapacitate victims?

danbohan

Danniboo wrote: »

Hi,

I'm sure everyone is as outraged as I am about the release of Larry Murphy on "good behaviour".:mad: It just got me thinking, it is illegal to carry pepper spray/mace etc in this country yet we are expected to walk the streets with this monster roaming around, what are peoples views on this? Do you think women should be allowed to carry this to defend themselves, would you carry it anyways regardless of it been banned?

larry murphy is a dangerous man that should be in jail but this near obsession with him at the moment is nonsense , their are probably a few hundred more larry murphys in ireland right at this moment just as dangerous or much more so because nobody knows them , nobodys monitoring them they are the real risk

28064212

Bambi wrote: »

Who else will be carrying it around then? The people who don't care if they're breaking the law? Guess what? they'll be carrying anyway.

Except it would now be perfectly legal for them to do so, and they would find it much easier to get them.

Danniboo

28064212 wrote: »

Ehhh, unless you have some kind of magic internet tool, you have no idea of the genders of the people posting unless they've said it themselves

But since this thread was supposed to be about women defending themselves, are you going to answer these questions:
If she uses it in self-defence, are you assuming it won't just enrage the attacker and cause her to get hurt worse? What if she panics and sprays someone who was "looking at her funny"?

And since you're advocating allowing people to carry weapons, what about the teenage scumbag who's going to carry it around for use in fights? In fact, what about the rapist who's going to carry it to make it easier to incapacitate victims?

Eh they have said it on their previous posts!!!!! Check yourself if you don't believe me.

We've already discussed the risks about the victims, criminals using it and it turning out worse, obvioulsy there's risk involved. But there needs to be some kind of happy medium that can be reached, ie garda vetting or something. What about that spray that leaves people with a paint like harmless substance on them for days, making them easily identifiable.

dolliemix

I agree with Danniboo. Its very disturbing regardless of gender that people on this thread believe that a woman having permission to carry mace spray is wrong, on the basis that she might use it at the wrong time....yet its alright to release a rapist and possible murderer because thats the law.


What is worse? If somebody used mace spray incorrectly or you/ your sister/ your mother/etc being raped or murdered.

Some of you are trying to make out that fair is fair Larry Murphy did his time.....his victim and her family are probably starting the whole rehabilatation process again from yesterday.

I just don't understand how people can say think "Larry Murphy did his time' and in the same sentence think ' people should not be allowed carry a protective spray because they might not use it properly'!!

So you trust a rapist but not the general public being able to possibly protect themselves form a convicted rapist?

Danniboo

28064212 wrote: »

Except it would now be perfectly legal for them to do so, and they would find it much easier to get them.

And if a garda vetting system was in place people like this or anyone who used it offensively would not be allowed carry it. Its better to risk this than a young girl being raped or murdered.

Dacelonid

Danniboo wrote: »

Where did it say this?

You said it in the thread title, the word you are looking for is "roam" not "Rome".
I am not nitpicking, just pointing out what the other poster was on about