Old man dead....attackers get off way too light

gimme5minutes

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/farmers-grief-as-neighbour-is-jailed-over-land-dispute-attack-2417355.html

This is some ridiculous sentencing. Two old farmers (68 and 70) who are brothers are beaten and kicked and punched on the ground by three men. One of the farmers then dies of a heart attack on the way to the hospital.

Result -
The ringleader gets 3 years (which works out at just over 2 years in reality)
The other two heros both get 2 years suspended sentences. WTF?

How do you partake in beating an old man to death and get no jail time for it!!??

scientific1982

The criminal justice system is a joke at this stage. Its better to take the law into your own hands.

Cookie_Monster

what a joke and yet its accepted. can this not be questioned by other judges, the court system or the Dept of justice?


also

Connie O'Sullivan

has a girls name :P

--Kaiser--

The Justice system of this country disgusts me far more than any amount of Government corruption or Banking scandals

Latchy

The justice system in the uk is not much better were every other day you hear of similar type attacks or murder were some judge hands down a light sentence (or none at all ) toataly disproportionate to the offence or crime .

Daisy!

That makes me so sad. Poor old men....it's only a real coward that beats up an old person. And for what? A few quid? Take your money and go, no need to beat the crap out of them and kill one....and then they get a ridiculous sentence....great country we live in alright :mad:

Donkey Oaty

Daisy! wrote: »

That makes me so sad. Poor old men....it's only a real coward that beats up an old person. And for what? A few quid? Take your money and go, no need to beat the crap out of them and kill one....and then they get a ridiculous sentence....great country we live in alright :mad:

I agree with your sentiment, but to be fair, that wasn't how it happened.

The guilty party saw it as their property being damaged and things got out of hand.

Daisy!

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment, but to be fair, that wasn't how it happened.

The guilty party saw it as their property being damaged and things got out of hand.

Sorry, I didn't read the link (find reading details like that too upsetting) but I just presumed it was to do with money or for no reason, thanks. I still think that wasn't a justified sentence though.

Orando Broom

Daisy! wrote: »

That makes me so sad. Poor old men....it's only a real coward that beats up an old person. And for what? A few quid? Take your money and go, no need to beat the crap out of them and kill one....and then they get a ridiculous sentence....great country we live in alright :mad:

Ten minutes in a room with bucks like them. Ten minutes.

Pyr0

Orando Broom wrote: »

Ten minutes in a room with bucks like them. Ten minutes.

Will they be tied down or can they fight back ?


Release the fury!! :mad::mad::mad:

Duggy747

I'm confused.

Since the world economy has taken a downturn has the value of human life gone down too and as a result killing someone doesn't warrant a hefty sentence as it once did?

(I know the guy died of a heart attack afterwards but it was still linked to the beating)

thebigbiffo

dont want to be mean here but this wasn't a case of someone 'beaten to death'...there was a land dispute (which immediately means there was 2 parties at loggerheads) and although these lads did beat the poor fella up - he died of a heart attack on the way to hospital. in my mind there's nothing wrong with this sentence - from what i gather, it's pretty much the definition of the term manslaughter...not one of these cases where a lad gets shot/stabbed and end up with a manslaughter conviction.

Yeah it is manslaughter and, as annoyed as people are with the justice system, the sentence is understandable. However had the old man been killed during the attack and as a direct result was murdered, then I'd be as angry as the rest of you are.

berettaman

I live in rural wexford, some of the crime is getting out of hand. If you left a tool down it would go missing... vans driving around at night and cutting lights as they drive up your driveway/lane at 1.30am+
At that time of night there is only one answer and it's not ringing the gardai...
We look after old folks near us and if we arrived to find scumbags in the process of beating them...:mad: well, I would be afraid to say what would happen (and I do not wish to sully this forum in any way...)

Donkey Oaty

thebigbiffo wrote: »

from what i gather, it's pretty much the definition of the term manslaughter...not one of these cases where a lad gets shot/stabbed and end up with a manslaughter conviction.

The original charge was manslaughter, but that was dropped and they pleaded guilty to "assault causing harm" which has a maximum sentence of five years.

The Independent refers to "remorse" shown by the ringleader, but that wasn't immediately apparent when he was first charged:

Yesterday at Macroom District Court, Det Garda Tom O’Sullivan gave evidence of arrest, charge and caution in respect of Connie O’Sullivan.

He said Mr O’Sullivan replied to the manslaughter charge: “I am not guilty – I saw his brother kill him.”

thebigbiffo

berettaman wrote: »

I live in rural wexford, some of the crime is getting out of hand. If you left a tool down it would go missing... vans driving around at night and cutting lights as they drive up your driveway/lane at 1.30am+
At that time of night there is only one answer and it's not ringing the gardai...
We look after old folks near us and if we arrived to find scumbags in the process of beating them...:mad: well, I would be afraid to say what would happen (and I do not wish to sully this forum in any way...)

well no offence but it is a bit off topic. i agree with you, but this case was about neighbours getting into a fist fight over land - not scum looking for an easy rob

th3 s1aught3r

There are certain crimes that I think we should have capital punishment for. These are crimes against helpless individuals such as this and against children. I cannot think of a worse crime than beating up an old person in their home and its happenning all too often, just imagine it was your parents or grandparents

thebigbiffo

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

The original charge was manslaughter, but that was dropped and they pleaded guilty to "assault causing harm" which has a maximum sentence of five years.

The Independent refers to "remorse" shown by the ringleader, but that wasn't immediately apparent when he was first charged:

fair enough my mistake. tbh though i still feel it's a pretty appropriate sentence. i know that mightn't be particularly popular - but they didn't mean to kill the fella...

thebigbiffo

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

I cannot think of a worse crime than beating up an old person in their home

agree with you - again there's a but - this happened in a field that these guys were having a long protracted dispute over. it was not a cold, callous killing.

gimme5minutes

thebigbiffo wrote: »

dont want to be mean here but this wasn't a case of someone 'beaten to death'...there was a land dispute (which immediately means there was 2 parties at loggerheads) and although these lads did beat the poor fella up - he died of a heart attack on the way to hospital. in my mind there's nothing wrong with this sentence - from what i gather, it's pretty much the definition of the term manslaughter...not one of these cases where a lad gets shot/stabbed and end up with a manslaughter conviction.

There's nothing wrong with this sentence in your mind??? You have two 25 year olds beating a 70 man til he falls on the ground where they then continue to punch and kick him. You wouldn't do it to dog.

Then they did the exact same to his 68 year old brother, attacked him and continued to punch and kick him on the ground.

You punch and kick anybody while you are part of a group and the victim s defenceless on the ground, you should be doing jail time. But it's even worse in the case as you are beating two old men, it doesnt take a genius to figure out if you launch a sustained attack on a defenceless 70 year he has a high chance of dying...which he did en route to the hospital.

These scumbags should have got put away for a long long time, not walking out of the court scot free. They just got lucky that the 70 year farmer managed to cling to life til he was in the ambulance and didnt die during the beating. Please explain why you think it was 'appropriate' that these guys got suspended sentences?

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah it is manslaughter and, as annoyed as people are with the justice system, the sentence is understandable. However had the old man been killed during the attack and as a direct result was murdered, then I'd be as angry as the rest of you are.

Yet another guy who thinks a group of 3 people kicking and beating two defenseless old men on the ground deserves a suspended sentence. You should look into taking up Law as you would make a fine Irish judge with that attitude.

And the guy who got 3 years, the 58 year old 'ringleader' should have got put away for life, he even picked up some timber fencing to beat them with, what a ****ing joke of a justice system we have.

berettaman

Hi thebigbiffo, I realise I was a bit off topic but I was referring to violence agains elderly people in general ..(I hope got there in the end....:))

Orando Broom

Pyr0 wrote: »

Will they be tied down or can they fight back ?


Release the fury!! :mad::mad::mad:

No, they could fight back. No fun the other way.

FlutterinBantam

It's 'way too lightly'



:pac:

These things matter

cypharius

thebigbiffo wrote: »

fair enough my mistake. tbh though i still feel it's a pretty appropriate sentence. i know that mightn't be particularly popular - but they didn't mean to kill the fella...

Yeah, they just wanted to hospitalize him so they could ruin him economically and steal his land. On a related note, I like my neighbors car so I think I might shoot him in the chest and take it. 2 years seems fair.