Man who knocked down burglar in court

ART6

Stark wrote: »

With all the ire over the homeowner being acquited, has anyone noticed that the burglar still hasn't received a punishment from the State for breaking and entering?

I thought he had been given a 3 - year suspended sentence. Now that is a real deterrent. That'll teach the b*****d:rolleyes:

Oceanbunny

I suppose that's where there is a gap in the law- that the insurance company should have a statutory backing to say it was part of a criminal activity and so they can dis-regard the claim- no profit from crime etc.

It's not a standard road accident - it's part of a larger criminal incident.

It's not as if the driver was driving around at 5 am looking for a scumbag to run over.

The causation of his injuries - imo- is that he broke into the driver's house - the series of events after that flow from that point.

Also people need to remember- the guy was not breaking in and hoping to get away quietly- he brought a weapon - and he seemed prepared to use it. His intention wasn't just to steal but to injure the householder or his family if necessary. He was prepared -with a weapon - to do so.

there should be a statutory backing for insurance companies - not to pay in these circumstances- and then the companies don't need to fight the law on it.

a guy was on the radio a few weeks back saying his dad was broken into a few times(not in ireland) - when the family were young by violent attackers - the police told him after the second time - to get a gun licence- learn to shoot and the next time to shoot straight at them- then when they are dead put two warning shots in the ceiling - then ring the police......

paddyandy

The Telly glamorises bad behaviour and makes criminals attractive .I got rid of the Pandoras Box years ago .

Oceanbunny

well speaking of telly- you can go to prison for not paying your tv licence.......much more serious crime than threatening someone with a srewdriver it seems....

benway

Where did the screwdriver come from? Or the threats? I thought he was unarmed and ran when the homeowner caught him in a bathroom. If he was armed and threatening, surely he would have been charged with aggravated burglary?

Kid Charlemagne wrote: »

Ah sure that makes them ok so - let them rob respectable hardworking people's homes as much as they like! sure theyre no doubt salt of the earth types who love their mammys.

Who's saying this? Read back on the past couple of pages.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I understand that it's fashionable to hate property developers these days, but how is that in any way relevant?

It's not "fashionable", just rational ... although hate is far too strong a word.

What's really gotten me about this thread is the whole "subhuman scumbag, sponging off the state, doing drugs and drinking Dutch Gold all day, no good to no-one, rest of us working hard for there living, sure it's only a pity he didn't kill him" spiel.

When I saw that the perpetrator is/was a property developer I had to laugh - I know developers who have debts to NAMA in the tens of millions, but still have somehow managed to hold on to their houses and Mercs and keep their kids in private schools ... and who's going to foot the bill for all of this?

The same hard working taxpayer who resents "scumbags" getting maybe €20k at a push from the state per year. How's about one person being bailed out to the tune of €32 million? And still walking around as if he owns the place, playing golf at the best clubs, eating at the best restaurants?

Again, not saying that McCaughey is one of these guys, but it just struck me that the dividing line between "respectable people" and "scumbags" may not be quite as clear as some of you like to make out. But people obviously aren't getting this point, and it's definitely one for another thread[/done]

martingore wrote: »

Bottom line ..the homeowner was never going to be charged with this so you can rest easy if you find yourself in a situation regarding a burglar .

He was charged with it, and he was very, very lucky to get off as lightly as he did, notwithstanding the civil claim. A Central Criminal Court jury may not have been so forgiving as a home-town jury. I wouldn't not take this as some kind of vigilante's charter, not by a long shot.

Oceanbunny

well it's it almost all the news reports that he was armed with a screwdriver.......


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dad-cleared-of-assault-tells-of-breaking-burglars-legs-3021642.html

rubberdiddies

Oceanbunny wrote: »

well speaking of telly- you can go to prison for not paying your tv licence.......much more serious crime than threatening someone with a srewdriver it seems....

and so welcome to the Irish Criminal Justice System where it pays to be a career criminal.

Enter a house with 3 kids in it armed with a weapon and receive a suspended sentence! No wonder there is so much burglary. Criminals know that the judges are on their side and more often than not wont send them to prison.

It's so frustrating. I'm beginning to agree with Eamonn Dunphys infamous summation of this country.

Oceanbunny

yes ...but it's not just the justice system here- it's the western legal philosophy - lefty liberals gone mad - everyone who is a criminal is cause they have a broken home, or they weren't breast fed or they weren't cuddled as a child....

if you do not have any respect for the rules of society- then why can you benefit from them - why don't you lose your rights when you stop abiding by the rules.....

ash23

Oceanbunny wrote: »

if you do not have any respect for the rules of society- then why can you benefit from them - why don't you lose your rights when you stop abiding by the rules.....

It's against the "rules" to hit someone with your car too so that's kind of a conflicting theory.

The King of Moo

Oceanbunny wrote: »

yes ...but it's not just the justice system here- it's the western legal philosophy - lefty liberals gone mad - everyone who is a criminal is cause they have a broken home, or they weren't breast fed or they weren't cuddled as a child....

if you do not have any respect for the rules of society- then why can you benefit from them - why don't you lose your rights when you stop abiding by the rules.....

Which rights? Civil rights or human rights? Both? Some of both, or just some of one set of rights?

ART6

Oceanbunny wrote: »

well speaking of telly- you can go to prison for not paying your tv licence.......much more serious crime than threatening someone with a srewdriver it seems....

The difference is that breaking into someone's house and stealing their property, whatever its value, is petty crime hardly worth filling prisons with. Not paying a TV licence is stealing from the government, and that is a very serious criminal offence.

Just a thought: What is the punishment for the government stealing from you?:rolleyes:

Oceanbunny

well I mean legal rights firstly......your right to take a civil case.

civil and human rights have been mis-used by people to cover the full spectrum - form the right not to be tortured....all the ways through to the right to rob and beat others.....

Ormus

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Every now and again I log onto boards and find a thread like this, which reminds me why I got the fuck out of Ireland, a complete fucking shithole of a country, flew to the other side of the planet and never looked back. I never find a thread that even starts to make me think that I made the wrong decision.

Ah, so you went to one of those countries where it's legal to run over a man on the street if you suspect he took some jewellery from your house?

What other cool laws have you got there? Is it legal to gouge out a man's eyeballs if you catch him looking at your girlfriend?

Your country rules man, you made the right decision? Stay there.

Oceanbunny

though I like the idea of the householder's family taking a civil case for emotional upset and now their inability to feel safe or secure in their home against the scumbag...
a nice figure of 180k maybe between the family claim.

any of the legal eagles - like the press of representing them- no foal no fee on that one?

benway

Oceanbunny wrote: »

well I mean legal rights firstly......your right to take a civil case.

civil and human rights have been mis-used by people to cover the full spectrum - form the right not to be tortured....all the ways through to the right to rob and beat others.....

So it would be better that the state bear the cost of medical treatment etc in these cases, rather than insurers? That's what it boils down to. Or would you rather leave him to die on the side of the street? Sure, he's only a "scumbag" anyway, right?

And you can be sure that the insurer would have fought the case tooth and nail instead of settling if they had thought there was any chance they'd have succeeded.

With all due respect, I'm not sure what you're on about with the rest of that.

Corruptable

Oceanbunny wrote: »

though I like the idea of the householder's family taking a civil case for emotional upset and now their inability to feel safe or secure in their home against the scumbag...
a nice figure of 180k maybe between the family claim.

any of the legal eagles - like the press of representing them- no foal no fee on that one?

No, everyone in the legal profession who doesn't work for the State would only represent scumbags as they're the best earners (see Legal Aid figures)

benway

Yeah, Denis O'Brien's counsel did pretty well out of that tribunal, as I recall.

Oh sorry, my mistake. You're only a "scumbag" if you qualify for legal aid, right? :rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

Batsy wrote: »

Everybody is better than a criminal.

Sigh....yes of course they are.....until they, like the homeowner, themselves committ a crime.

don ramo

guy should cover the medical bills for running him over thats about it, guy got what he deserved for breaking into a house of a family with kids, id freak out if i found a stanger wondering through my house with my kids sleeping nearby, anyone would doesnt matter how leveled headed you would normally be,

i dont understand think if there wa sno insurance, where exactly does this guy get E180k from, hes probably already paying a mortgage on a house thats in negative equity,

Oceanbunny

benway wrote: »

So it would be better that the state bear the cost of medical treatment etc in these cases, rather than insurers? That's what it boils down to. Or would you rather leave him to die on the side of the street? Sure, he's only a "scumbag" anyway, right?

And you can be sure that the insurer would have fought the case tooth and nail instead of settling if they had thought there was any chance they'd have succeeded.

With all due respect, I'm not sure what you're on about with the rest of that.

you brought up civil rights - which are kinda used as an excuse for almost anything.

do you not think he used a medical card and the state DID pay for his injuries?

Sunnyisland

don ramon wrote: »

guy should cover the medical bills for running him over that's about it, guy got what he deserved for breaking into a house of a family with kids, id freak out if i found a stranger wondering through my house with my kids sleeping nearby, anyone would doesn't matter how leveled headed you would normally be,

i don't understand where exactly does this guy get E180k from, hes probably already paying a mortgage on a house that's in negative equity,

His car Insurance paid out, And according to the victim he only found that out a few weeks ago as said on newstalk this morning.

AudreyHepburn

hardbackwriter wrote: »

The home owner wasnt thinking about high minded ideals like being better than anyone , he was faced with a crisis situation and his instinct kicked in , society should be happy that he was made of strong stuff

Instict would be picking up the nearest available hard or sharp object and using it to subdue the criminal. Instict would be picking up the phone to call the Gardai.

The homeowner may have been frightened out of his wits but he had the wherewithal to find his car keys, get in the car, pursue the theif, ram him twice and threaten to kill him.

If society starts lauding such vigilantism then we are all in serious trouble.

ash23

don ramo wrote: »

i dont understand think if there wa sno insurance, where exactly does this guy get E180k from, hes probably already paying a mortgage on a house thats in negative equity,

Well, these are the things we must think about before running people over.

benway

Oceanbunny wrote: »

you brought up civil rights - which are kinda used as an excuse for almost anything.

do you not think he used a medical card and the state DID pay for his injuries?

Nope, was paid out of the compensation. Not being smart, but civil litigation obviously isn't your strong suit.

Mind you, if you think that civil and human rights are about providing "excuses", recent history obviously isn't your strong suit either.

The King of Moo

Oceanbunny wrote: »

you brought up civil rights - which are kinda used as an excuse for almost anything.

do you not think he used a medical card and the state DID pay for his injuries?

Can you give any examples?

Doubtless there will be cases where certain rights give an advantage to someone we might not like, and of course any system can be abused, but by and large, human rights and civil rights are granted to us to protect us; from other individuals and from the state.

Sentences for serious crimes are often based around the loss or restriction of certain rights anyway: losing a number of types of freedom when going to prison, for example.

I'm not sure how losing the right to bring a civil suit would work in a practical sense. Surely we should all have the right to attempt to do so if we see fit. At the same time, courts have the right to throw a case out or stop it from happening.

Oceanbunny

benway wrote: »

Nope, was paid out of the compensation. Not being smart, but civil litigation obviously isn't your strong suit.

Mind you, if you think that civil and human rights are about providing "excuses", recent history obviously isn't your strong suit either.

Are you telling me that he was brought into hospital that night- and asked to be a private patient??? how else were the hospital charging him? he might have had to pay for physio or other care afterwards - but I imagine he did receive free care from the health system.

re-read my posts- I said the rights can be mis-used - of course there are legitimate cases- but there are also plenty of cases where people just say' but it's a civil right/ human right' and everyone seems to take a step back as if it's magic- rather than looking at the merits of the particular circumstances

ash23

Oceanbunny wrote: »

Are you telling me that he was brought into hospital that night- and asked to be a private patient??? how else were the hospital charging him? he might have had to pay for physio or other care afterwards - but I imagine he did receive free care from the health system.

As far as I know, he would have been treated under the public system. However when an award was made to him for his injuries, part of that payment would have been for medical fees which would have been paid to the hospital directly, not to the guy himself (50k as reported)

Another portion would have been for legal fees so odds are of that €175k, he didn't see nearly that amount.

Oceanbunny

thanks ash23.

it makes it a little better that the hospital fees were refunded directly.

someone els eon here mentioned he had 32 convictions - would you happen to know if he is now barred from legal aid in the future? or how that works?

The poor sod only broke in to repair the owners faulty boiler....that's why he had the screwdriver.
He didn't deserve to have his legs broke....those fellas driving mercs and who work for banks deserve that............

:rolleyes::pac:

RachaelVO

Well, he's been cleared of all charges, and I have to say, I am delighted, I'm not sure I really would have done the same thing, but I don't really know that I wouldn't have, especially with my kids in the same house! But he did have every right to be p1ssed off and angry.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dad-cleared-of-assault-tells-of-breaking-burglars-legs-3021642.html

A BUSINESSMAN who was acquitted of assaulting a burglar he hit twice with his car said today that he still relived the night he awoke to find Daniel McCormack armed with a screwdriver in his bedroom.

Speaking on the John Murray Show on Radio 1, Martin McCaughey (48) said: “He wouldn’t have had two broken legs unless he was in my house.”

Mr McCormack (27) received a suspended sentence for the burglary and an award of €175,000 from Mr McCaughey’s insurance for his injuries.

“It’s absolutely disgraceful that an insurance company would pay out that sort of money.” Mr McCaughey said, adding that he was also disgusted that he had received a suspended sentence rather than jail.

A jury last night cleared the property developer of Bunvista, Mount Avenue, Dundalk of assault causing harm to burglar Daniel McCormack at Clann Chullainn Park, Farndreg, Dundalk on June 27 2008.

Daniel McCormack was given a suspended three year jail term for the burglary of the McCaughey family home at an earlier court hearing.

Mr McCaughey recounted how he awoke at about 5.30am that morning to find the intruder coming out of his ensuite bathroom “looking at us with a screwdriver in his hand”.

As McCormack ran from the house, he told how he got into his wife’s car and followed him as he rang the guards.

“He would never have been caught if I hadn’t followed him to keep an eye on his for the guards. My intention was never to do damage to him,” he said.

After tracking him down to a neighbouring estate he said he did not intend to ram him, but just to box him in until the guards got there.

“I had no shoes on me. I had no clothes on me, only boxer shorts. I remember hitting him but my mind drew a blank then,” he said.

Daniel McCormack sustained two broken legs in the incident.

“Imagine if I hadn’t been in the house and it was just my wife and three children. What would have happened? That still goes through my mind today. Would he have run?” Mr McCaughey said.

Asked if he would do the same again he answered: “I was determined that this man had to be caught. If someone broke into my house again I would want them caught.”

- Independent.ie reporters