Man who knocked down burglar in court

Fuhrer

grindelwald wrote: »

So do you believe you above the law? He is to you, after all, only a petty thief! The law says his a burglar, you say his a petty thief.

He can be both.

ash23

gerryo777 wrote: »

I prefer the Oxford dictionary myself.
maim; wound or injure (a person or animal)so that part of the body is permanently damaged.

I think you should take a bit of a break, have a coffee or something.

Permanantly damaged, so scarred yes?
I'd imagine he'd be scarred what with bones penetrating through skin. Therefore maimed.

Gotta love the patronising passive aggressive posts :rolleyes:

JonathanAnon

Talking about it on with Mary Wilson Radio One now..

He's already received 175k from the victim of his crime, from a previous civil case... This is the criminal trial... The guards and DPP really should be ashamed of themselves.. If they'd been doing their job properly this lad would have been in jail in the first place..

cynder

hollypink wrote: »

I thought he would have received hospital treatment for free as a public patient? Is that not how it works?

Sure would he not have a medical card?

gerryo777

ash23 wrote: »

Permanantly damaged, so scarred yes?
I'd imagine he'd be scarred what with bones penetrating through skin. Therefore maimed.

Gotta love the patronising passive aggressive posts :rolleyes:

Back to the guy in question, it's a pity he wasn't crippled!

ash23

grindelwald wrote: »

So do you believe you above the law? He is to you, after all, only a petty thief! The law says his a burglar, you say his a petty thief.

Let it go, seriously. Change it to whatever you like. Thief, petty thief, burglar etc etc. The sentiment of the post still stands. I've said that a few times now.

Corruptable

hollypink wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted already but the Judge instructed the jury to return a not guilty verdict:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0215/mccaugheym.html

Fair play. The defendant is a lucky man to be walking out of there. Hopefully a line will be drawn under this and those involved can get on with their lives, both fortunate to not have suffered a worse outcome.

Chucky the tree

Corruptable wrote: »

Fair play. The defendant is a lucky man to be walking out of there. Hopefully a line will be drawn under this and those involved can get on with their lives, both fortunate to not have suffered a worse outcome.

He can still be done for assualt. Jury are now deliberating on that one.

tfitzgerald

I think the homeowner should get a medal for protecting his property against scum

JonathanAnon

Corruptable wrote: »

Fair play. The defendant is a lucky man to be walking out of there

Remember, there are TWO charges.. The jury have been directed to find the defendant not guilty on reckless endangerment... The jury are currently deliberating on the primary charge of assault causing harm... They have been out for an hour...

If I was on that jury, there is NO WAY that I would even indulge the Gardaí and DPP by even contemplating a guilty verdict... Punishing somebody for trying to do their job for them..

benway

The point of compensation is to put you in the position you would have been in had the accident never happened. Usually only a small portion for "pain and suffering" is awarded above medical expenses, loss of earnings etc.

I'm kinda confused by this, are there charges other than reckless endangerment?

ash23

benway wrote: »

The point of compensation is to put you in the position you would have been in had the accident never happened. Usually only a small portion for "pain and suffering" is awarded above medical expenses, loss of earnings etc.

I'm kinda confused by this, are there other charges other than reckless endangerment?

There was also a charge of assault which is what they are deliberating now.

gerryo777

Slightly off topic I know but I see that other scumbag has just been found guilty of murdering young Shane Geoghegan in Limerick.
Some justice for the Geoghegan family at last.

cynder

gerryo777 wrote: »

Slightly off topic I know but I see that other scumbag has just been found guilty of murdering young Shane Geoghegan in Limerick.
Some justice for the Geoghegan family at last.

Spotted that.

hollypink

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Remember, there are TWO charges.. The jury have been directed to find the defendant not guilty on reckless endangerment... The jury are currently deliberating on the primary charge of assault causing harm... They have been out for an hour...

If I was on that jury, there is NO WAY that I would even indulge the Gardaí and DPP by even contemplating a guilty verdict... Punishing somebody for trying to do their job for them..

Sorry I missed that there was a second charge. I've edited my post. Even though I'd like him to be found not guilty because I think there are mitigating circumstances, but based on the facts in the RTE article, I think it's unlikely.

benway wrote: »

The point of compensation is to put you in the position you would have been in had the accident never happened. Usually only a small portion for "pain and suffering" is awarded above medical expenses, loss of earnings etc.

I'm kinda confused by this, are there charges other than reckless endangerment?

according to the Examiner, the hospital only got €50,000 of the €175,000.

He agreed he had sued Mr McCaughey for €175,000. Mr McCormack said he had given €50,000 of this to the hospital he had been treated in.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-used-car-to-assault-burglar-court-hears-183919.html

Jaysoose

ash23 wrote: »

Permanantly damaged, so scarred yes?
I'd imagine he'd be scarred what with bones penetrating through skin. Therefore maimed.

Gotta love the patronising passive aggressive posts :rolleyes:

Do you have any proof of this or are you making up more "facts".

benway

hollypink wrote: »

according to the Examiner, the hospital only got €50,000 of the €175,000.

Tbh, I'm not sure I'd believe that without seeing the Court Order. I'm going by how these things usually work.

cynder

Jaysoose wrote: »

Do you have any proof of this or are you making up more "facts".

Well you see the poor petty thief was maimed.

Not the burglar who scared the wits out of a family, got a broken leg or 2.....

Potato, tomato.....

Dunny

Not a bother on the cnut running around dundalk and jumping up the courthouse steps with a smile on his face.

PickledLime

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

While I am all for defending your property and loved ones I think some of the reactions here are over the top and frankly disturbing.

We have laws for a reason and I don't want to live in a vigilante society where you can commit violence against another person and be praised and awarded for it.

The robber was a criminal and scum yes, but how is the victim any better? He deliberatly ran down another person.....surely this is not the example we want to follow?

If you do then I suggest you want to take a good look at yourself.

Sign of the times.

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing this scum walking around like they own the place while the rest of us struggle to get by. They have everything they want for no effort, they'll happily tread on other people's toes to get their own way, but cry foul as soon as someone looks at them the wrong way.

There's no disincentive to committing crime. Slap on the hand, couple months behind bars in a medium security, maximum comfort prison. I know if i was one of these career criminals i'd be put off breaking into a house knowing that the owner was allowed to stick a knife in me than go to holiday camp prison for a few months.

Most of these morons only understand violence anyway.

My name is URL

The jury have just acquitted him.

Eric Cartman

HE WAS AQUITTED.

Finally , some justice in this country, fcuking scumbag I hope he learned a lesson and can never walk again.

muracan

Justice for him!Excellent.:D
Hope CAB can get the 175k offf the scumbag theif now!:mad:

Show Time

Thankfully common sense has won out.

cynder

Over the moon, delighted for the man and his family...

Milk & Honey

hollypink wrote: »

I thought he would have received hospital treatment for free as a public patient? Is that not how it works?

No. If someone is provided with treatment for an accident and later recovers damages from a third party the hospital is entitled to be re-imbursed for the cost of the treatment. the costs are put into the personal injuries case as special damages.

Vizzy

This might discourage persons from wandering aimlessly when drunk and then deciding that if you do find youself in an unknown house,help yourself.

The King of Moo

PickledLime wrote: »

Sign of the times.

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing this scum walking around like they own the place while the rest of us struggle to get by. They have everything they want for no effort, they'll happily tread on other people's toes to get their own way, but cry foul as soon as someone looks at them the wrong way.

There's no disincentive to committing crime. Slap on the hand, couple months behind bars in a medium security, maximum comfort prison. I know if i was one of these career criminals i'd be put off breaking into a house knowing that the owner was allowed to stick a knife in me than go to holiday camp prison for a few months.

Most of these morons only understand violence anyway.

You are allowed to stick a knife into a burglar in your home if it's deemed reasonable force, and I'd imagine many juries would be more inclined to see it as reasonable force, given the public attitudes displayed towards burglars.

So it would seem that the threat of violence doesn't act as a great deterrent.

man.about.town

http://shop.septictigerrecords.com/Protect+Thyself+And+Home

qc3

The justice system does work, sometimes. Great verdict.:)