Lowest of the low

MagicSean

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0108/murder.html

Gardai say they're following a definite line of inquiry in their investigation into the murder of an elderly man in Dublin yesterday afternoon.

The seventy year old who lived in a Dublin City Council retirement complex at Ravensdale Close in Kimmage was found dead in bed following a fire at his home.

The seventy year old died in his bed after he was attacked and stabbed in the chest.

The home was then set on fire and the emergency services were alerted.

The body of the elderly man was last night removed from his home for a post mortem later today.

Gardai recovered a knife at the scene which they believe is the murder weapon.

They also found evidence that the killer forced his way in.

The pensioner's home remains sealed off today.

Detectives are continuing house to house inquiries in the area and appealing for anyone with information to contact them at Sundrive Road Garda Station on 6666 600.

They are anxious to speak to anyone who was in the area or saw anything suspicious.

A case conference was held last night and Gardai say they're following a definite line of inquiry in this murder investigation.

This story disturbed me greatly. It's scary to think that there are people who would do this sort of thing. How does someone who picks on the most vulnerable among us live with themselves? There should be a mandatory and hefty prison sentence for people convicted of crimes against vulnerable people.

FatherLen

MagicSean wrote: »

There should be a mandatory and hefty prison sentence for people convicted of crimes against vulnerable people.

how on earth would you judge how vulnerable someone is.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

MagicSean wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0108/murder.html



This story disturbed me greatly. It's scary to think that there are people who would do this sort of thing. How does someone who picks on the most vulnerable among us live with themselves? There should be a mandatory and hefty prison sentence for people convicted of crimes against vulnerable people.

There probably will be, but it will probably still go on.

MagicSean

FatherLen wrote: »

how on earth would you judge how vulnerable someone is.

It's not too hard. Age would be a good start. Under 12 or over 70 could easily be considered vulnerable.

chin_grin

FatherLen wrote: »

how on earth would you judge how vulnerable someone is.

Vulnerable = those who cannot defend themselves. Like old people, and young people. Or those who don't have any sharp objects to hand.

Dudess

Obviously the crime is ****ing obscene, but 70 isn't that old or frail nowadays. Conversely, anyone of any age or gender or disposition could be vulnerable when a knife-wielding individual is in their home.

chin_grin

Dudess wrote: »

Obviously the crime is ****ing obscene, but 70 isn't that old or frail nowadays. Conversely, anyone of any age or gender or disposition could be vulnerable when a knife-wielding individual is in their home.

I see you've played knifey - seventy before then.

Sonics2k

FatherLen wrote: »

how on earth would you judge how vulnerable someone is.

I'd say the fact he was man in his 70's, who was stabbed in his bed puts him on the list of 'vulnerable' people.

:rolleyes:

newmug

Dont be so quick to judge, you dont know the whole story.

If one of my kids told me X had sexually abused them, I would treat X's age like they had treated my kids age, as a non-consideration.

I'm not saying anything about the murder victim in this case, I'm sure he was innocent, but I'm just pointing out that its not wise to judge before knowing all the facts.

MagicSean

Dudess wrote: »

Obviously the crime is ****ing obscene, but 70 isn't that old or frail nowadays. Conversely, anyone of any age or gender or disposition could be vulnerable when a knife-wielding individual is in their home.

Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference in this case, but it's just as likely this man was originally chosen because of his age.

Dudess

newmug wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that its not wise to judge before knowing all the facts.

Yeah we can assume the attacker just intruded, and killed the man, but we don't know what happened at all. Not that anything would justify it.

newmug

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah we can assume the attacker just intruded, and killed the man, but we don't know what happened at all. Not that anything would justify it.

Well.......... some things would!!!!!

chin_grin

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah we can assume the attacker just intruded, and killed the man, but we don't know what happened at all. Not that anything would justify it.

What if the elderly man couldn't hear him knock to give him back his knife? So he entered the house but then forgot basic safety when handling knives and gave it to him blade first. What a giddy goat!

senorwipesalot

Self harming arsonist?

senorwipesalot

senorwipesalot wrote: »

Self harming arsonist?

Serial arsonist on the loose?

I wonder if this is related to the fires nearby in Harold's cross a few months ago?
Going into work one early morning there were two yellow skips on fire. One outside Inn on the park one outside the scouts den on Mount Argus road. A week or so later somone set fire to a pile of rubbish bags and hedge.

Fratton Fred

Dudess wrote: »

Obviously the crime is ****ing obscene, but 70 isn't that old or frail nowadays. Conversely, anyone of any age or gender or disposition could be vulnerable when a knife-wielding individual is in their home.

Chuck Norris is 72 this year.

as125634do

here is another one:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4044730/Feisty-Betty-Yates-77-knifed-to-death-by-burglar-at-her-home.html

Eric Cartman

MagicSean wrote: »

There should be a mandatory and hefty prison sentence for people convicted of crimes against vulnerable people.

you cant do that, youd have solicitors arguing that sentences should be stiffer for crimes against women, people with mild learning disabilities and all sorts , it would open the flood gates to ludicrous sentencing and youd have people getting near life in prison for even looking angry at anybody except over 6ft straight able bodied men with no medical conditions

Overheal

You mean they weren't just after the pills??? :eek: :rolleyes:

Son Of A Vidic

newmug wrote: »

Dont be so quick to judge, you dont know the whole story.

If one of my kids told me X had sexually abused them, I would treat X's age like they had treated my kids age, as a non-consideration.

I'm not saying anything about the murder victim in this case, I'm sure he was innocent, but I'm just pointing out that its not wise to judge before knowing all the facts.

So it was yourself that did it then.

Chuck Stone

I've often thought that people in positions of trust who have access to children and old people should be punished more harshly for harming those people they've been entrusted with.

Have no idea how it would be applied in the real world or even if it would be a good idea tbh.

MagicSean

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you cant do that, youd have solicitors arguing that sentences should be stiffer for crimes against women, people with mild learning disabilities and all sorts , it would open the flood gates to ludicrous sentencing and youd have people getting near life in prison for even looking angry at anybody except over 6ft straight able bodied men with no medical conditions

Now you're being ridiculous.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've often thought that people in positions of trust who have access to children and old people should be punished more harshly for harming those people they've been entrusted with.

Have no idea how it would be applied in the real world or even if it would be a good idea tbh.

i think there actually is a more serious charge for persons in authority who abuse children.

JustAddWater

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'd say the fact he was man in his 70's, who was stabbed in his bed puts him on the list of 'vulnerable' people.

:rolleyes:

Bill Cullen is 70 in may

El Weirdo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Chuck Norris is 72 this year.

JustAddWater wrote: »

Bill Cullen is 70 in may

Stephen Hawking is 70 today.

Am I doing it right?

Scruffles

targeting people who are vulnerable...that one sounds very familiar.


-this is a good description of what vulnerable adult means:
http://www.cavos.org.uk/content/pdfs/Vulnerable%20Adults.pdf

elderly people are not technicaly classed as vulnerable,as not all elderly people are mentaly or physicaly impaired by their age,its that impairment which can make them vulnerable.

who is to say the incident in the article was age targeted and not because of something in his life or family?


the most truly vulnerable elderly people are those who are robbed legaly-by the UK government who do not provide near enough care for them due to funding cuts which a long while back had badly hit all adult sections of social services [elderly,learning disability,mental health,physical,sensory].

juan.kerr

MagicSean wrote: »

This story disturbed me greatly. It's scary to think that there are people who would do this sort of thing. How does someone who picks on the most vulnerable among us live with themselves? There should be a mandatory and hefty prison sentence for people convicted of crimes against vulnerable people.

Sorry, but I can't agree. We should be discouraging ALL attacks like this, not just those against the vulnerable.


I would be just as vulnerable if someone came at me with a knife, do I not also deserve justice?

Eric Cartman

Scruffles wrote: »

targeting people who are vulnerable...that one sounds very familiar.


-this is a good description of what vulnerable adult means:
http://www.cavos.org.uk/content/pdfs/Vulnerable%20Adults.pdf

elderly people are not technicaly classed as vulnerable,as not all elderly people are mentaly or physicaly impaired by their age,its that impairment which can make them vulnerable.

who is to say the incident in the article was age targeted and not because of something in his life or family?


the most truly vulnerable elderly people are those who are robbed legaly-by the UK government who do not provide near enough care for them due to funding cuts which a long while back had badly hit all adult sections of social services [elderly,learning disability,mental health,physical,sensory].

that definition seems grand until you get to the drug addicts/ alcoholic part , nobody should get a stiffer sentence for injuring a junkie, they should get a medal

Benny_Cake

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that definition seems grand until you get to the drug addicts/ alcoholic part , nobody should get a stiffer sentence for injuring a junkie, they should get a medal

Even by your standards that's a pretty disgusting thing to say.

I'm not sure if singling out certain types of murder is the way to go with this, murder is murder. But the judge should be able to judge the particular case in question and decide the severity of the sentence to be handed down.

Eric Cartman

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Even by your standards that's a pretty disgusting thing to say.

I'm not sure if singling out certain types of murder is the way to go with this, murder is murder. But the judge should be able to judge the particular case in question and decide the severity of the sentence to be handed down.

well thats the point of this thread really,

somebody commits a crime against an elderly person "oohh give them a worse sentance, the bastards"

then i come back with

somebody commits a crime against a junkie "give them a lighter sentance or none at all"

two sides of the same coin here really, yet in some peoples minds mine is worse.

MagicSean

juan.kerr wrote: »

Sorry, but I can't agree. We should be discouraging ALL attacks like this, not just those against the vulnerable.


I would be just as vulnerable if someone came at me with a knife, do I not also deserve justice?

That's a very selfish attitude to have. You would be just as vulnerable if a man came to your door with a knife. That is correct. Would you be just as vulnerable as an elderly person if a man came pretending to be an ESB inspector or from the council?

juan.kerr

They also found evidence that the killer forced his way in.

Could happen to anyone.

MagicSean wrote: »

That's a very selfish attitude to have. You would be just as vulnerable if a man came to your door with a knife. That is correct. Would you be just as vulnerable as an elderly person if a man came pretending to be an ESB inspector or from the council?

Doesn't matter. No section of society is more important than another or deserves preferential treatment in the courts.

I guarantee that if something like this was introduced, the number of robberies against 'non vulnerable' would increase.

MagicSean

juan.kerr wrote: »

Could happen to anyone.



Doesn't matter. No section of society is more important than another or deserves preferential treatment in the courts.

I guarantee that if something like this was introduced, the number of robberies against 'non vulnerable' would increase.

They may not be more important but they certainly need more protection. I don't know how you can guarantee that either. A lot of the time vulnerable people are specifically targeted because of the fact they are elderly, on their own or not of full mental capacity. They are easy pickings. It's not likely that the offender would simply switch to a different target because of the fear of a higher sentence for the simple reason that the less vulnerable target is not likely to fall for the scam.

juan.kerr

MagicSean wrote: »

It's not likely that the offender would simply switch to a different target because of the fear of a higher sentence for the simple reason that the less vulnerable target is not likely to fall for the scam.

So what's the point of different sentencing if it's not a deterent? Are we talking purely about punishment, after the fact? Makes no sense to me.

MagicSean

juan.kerr wrote: »

So what's the point of different sentencing if it's not a deterent? Are we talking purely about punishment, after the fact? Makes no sense to me.

It would deter them from picking on the vulnerable but that doesn't mean it would move them on to the not so vulnerable as they would be less likely to succeed. It would deter them from that kind of crime altogether.