This Road Rage - Manslaughter - Drunk Driver case

Pkiernan

Since the "victim" in this case apparently drank at least 10 pints before starting some road rage, I have a hard time sympathising.

He gets into argy bargy with a bloke who has his 18 month old baby with him, then cuts the guy off.

Sounds like drunkies mouth was writing cheques his fists couldn't cash.

In this situation, were I on the jury I am not sure I would convict. However the defendant plead gulity to manslaughter.

It's also interesting how the widow describes her perfect drink driving husband!

"The boys could not comprehend what had happened to their dad when they saw him in hospital - their best friend, fishing and shooting partner, drinking buddy and dad, lying motionless, completely dependent on technology to keep him alive."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/court-hears-motorist-looked-possessed-as-he-killed-drinkdriver-in-road-rage-attack-3082059.html

Old Tom

Can't please everyone - if the drunk lad killed the father and his 18 months daughter, there would be whinging too.

But surely the "boys" would not lose their dad for too long, after 1-2 years sentence (if any) in civilised Europe he'd be out of jail in no time - ready for drink driving again.

And the next time it could be any of us.

M cebee

ah ye
but your man hit him in the head with a hurley and continued the assault

he's a thug attacking a drunk driver

Radharc na Sleibhte

Mr Ten pints was murdered before he murdered someone else with his car.
Mr Hurley will be locked up and banned.

Win win.
The roads are safer with these two off them in my opinion.

fasttalkerchat

I was with the defendant until he hit the drunk man when he was on the ground. Given that he had not actually been assaulted he crossed the line there.

Bearcat

Mr Hurley is going down without a doubt.....he'll get manslaughter as it wasn't premeditated says me.

Driving a car with 10pints......wtf? He was going to tangle with somebody.

Chriscl1

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I was with the defendant until he hit the drunk man when he was on the ground. Given that he had not actually been assaulted he crossed the line there.

+1. The defendant is 31 and he needs a hurley to beat up a drunk old man then cracks him in the temple when he's on the floor. If he felt he had to take the law into his own hands then what was wrong with using his fists instead. I hope he gets what he deserves.

kildare.17hmr

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I was with the defendant until he hit the drunk man when he was on the ground. Given that he had not actually been assaulted he crossed the line there.

+1 to that.

Mr 10 pints deserved a few slaps but mr hurly should of just called the guards, wtf was he thinkin gettin out for a scrap with his 10 month old kid in the car???

tfitzgerald

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I was with the defendant until he hit the drunk man when he was on the ground. Given that he had not actually been assaulted he crossed the line there.

Me too . When he hit him on the ground with a Hurley he lost me . In saying that if he had being frightened and all psyched up maybe he lost control of himself . I don't think he should do a lot of time

haminka

Clearly this was two violent men who had to prove to themselves they had balls by having a go at each other. There is no excuse for what the defendant did. If he felt that he was threatened by the drunk driver, he should have pulled off and call the guards, especially with a young child in the car. I'd beat my own husband with a stick if he attempted to physically confront someone because the other guy was driving like a muppet because he puts not only himself but also his child in danger. While I have very little sympathy with the victim, I don't see it as an excuse for the defendant to attack him and beat him. In most confrontations the wiser thing would have been if the wiser part has chosen retreat.

Anan1

Pkiernan wrote: »

Since the "victim" in this case apparently drank at least 10 pints before starting some road rage, I have a hard time sympathising.

He gets into argy bargy with a bloke who has his 18 month old baby with him, then cuts the guy off.

Sounds like drunkies mouth was writing cheques his fists couldn't cash.

In this situation, were I on the jury I am not sure I would convict. However the defendant plead gulity to manslaughter.

It's also interesting how the widow describes her perfect drink driving husband!

"The boys could not comprehend what had happened to their dad when they saw him in hospital - their best friend, fishing and shooting partner, drinking buddy and dad, lying motionless, completely dependent on technology to keep him alive."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/court-hears-motorist-looked-possessed-as-he-killed-drinkdriver-in-road-rage-attack-3082059.html

This sounds frighteningly like a justification of murder to me.

seamus

Anan1 wrote: »

This sounds frighteningly like a justification of murder to me.

It wasn't murder

It's easy enough to see why they accepted the manslaughter plea rather than push for a murder trial. A jury would have a tough time making their minds up on it. At the end of the day, the guy died from an unlucky blow to the temple which had a delayed effect. So it would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donohue intended to kill or cause serious harm to Bates. On another day, it would have just been a plain old assault case.

The fact that Bates got up and drove off afterwards would indicate to me that Donohue stopped attacking him because he didn't want to cause any more injury. If the intention had been to cause death or serious injury, he wouldn't have stopped and he wouldn't have let Bates get up and drive off. So manslaughter it is.

It's hard to say really without having been in the situation. I would be a very non-confrontational person. But if someone tried to drive me off the road with my child in the back, I can't guarantee that I wouldn't just lose it and try to beat the guy senseless with whatever I had to hand.
By all accounts, stopping and ringing the Gardai may not have been an option because when he stopped, an argument ensued. So Donohue may have felt that his only option was to keep driving and hope the psycho drunk goes away.

Anan1

seamus wrote: »

It wasn't murder

It's easy enough to see why they accepted the manslaughter plea rather than push for a murder trial. A jury would have a tough time making their minds up on it. At the end of the day, the guy died from an unlucky blow to the temple which had a delayed effect. So it would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donohue intended to kill or cause serious harm to Bates. On another day, it would have just been a plain old assault case.

The fact that Bates got up and drove off afterwards would indicate to me that Donohue stopped attacking him because he didn't want to cause any more injury. If the intention had been to cause death or serious injury, he wouldn't have stopped and he wouldn't have let Bates get up and drive off. So manslaughter it is.

As you say, it might be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. But to my mind you don't hit someone on the head with a hurley while they're lying on the ground unless you either want to kill them or at least don't care whether they live or die. Either way, I can't see how the accused was justifiably provoked to anything approaching what he did.

seamus

Anan1 wrote: »

But to my mind you don't hit someone on the head with a hurley while they're lying on the ground unless you ... don't care whether they live or die.

Maybe so, but that still wouldn't qualify as murder. Theoretically, a reckless apathy about the life of your victim is less incriminating than actually wanting them to die.

Either way, I can't see how the accused was justifiably provoked to anything approaching what he did.

Of course not. But I would class this one as a "crime of passion". These are always tough to call because no matter how moral or ethical one considers themselves, it's impossible to declare yourself immune from doing the same thing.

M cebee

seamus wrote: »

Anan1 wrote: »

But to my mind you don't hit someone on the head with a hurley while they're lying on the ground unless you ... don't care whether they live or die.

Maybe so, but that still wouldn't qualify as murder. Theoretically, a reckless apathy about the life of your victim is less incriminating than actually wanting them to die.

Either way, I can't see how the accused was justifiably provoked to anything approaching what he did.

Of course not. But I would class this one as a "crime of passion". These are always tough to call because no matter how moral or ethical one considers themselves, it's impossible to declare yourself immune from doing the same thing.

im sure quite a percentage of people are immune from hitting people on the head with something in similar circumstances

seamus

M cebee wrote: »

im sure quite a percentage of people are immune from hitting people on the head with something in similar circumstances

Unless you've been in a situation where someone is recklessly putting the life of your child at risk, I really don't think you can make that call.

M cebee

seamus wrote: »

M cebee wrote: »

im sure quite a percentage of people are immune from hitting people on the head with something in similar circumstances

Unless you've been in a situation where someone is recklessly putting the life of your child at risk, I really don't think you can make that call.

disagree

Gillo

M cebee wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

M cebee wrote: »

im sure quite a percentage of people are immune from hitting people on the head with something in similar circumstances

Unless you've been in a situation where someone is recklessly putting the life of your child at risk, I really don't think you can make that call.

disagree

Pretty much every parent will disagree with you, I'm normally a very passive guy but put my daughter at risk and there's a big change.
I do think a blow to the head with a hurley was excessive however we don't know my aggressive the agreement was when the two of them got out of their cars. Personnaly I'd side with a lighter sentence, from what I've read the victim was the original aggressor.

M cebee

Gillo wrote: »

M cebee wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

M cebee wrote: »

im sure quite a percentage of people are immune from hitting people on the head with something in similar circumstances

Unless you've been in a situation where someone is recklessly putting the life of your child at risk, I really don't think you can make that call.

disagree

Pretty much every parent will disagree with you, I'm normally a very passive guy but put my daughter at risk and there's a big change.
I do think a blow to the head with a hurley was excessive however we don't know my aggressive the agreement was when the two of them got out of their cars. Personnaly I'd side with a lighter sentence, from what I've read the victim was the original aggressor.

still don't agree
you 'think' every parent would have been capable of hitting someone on the head with a hurley in the same situation?

id like to see some evidence or more opinion to back that up

the_syco

Mr Bates's widow Brenda wept in court as it emerged her husband had drunk up to 10 pints of Guinness in a pub before getting behind the wheel of his Mitsubishi Pajero and tailgating and flashing Donohoe, who was travelling with his 18-month-old daughter.

Witnesses said Donohoe stopped in Irishtown, where both drivers got out of their cars and had an argument on the street, with Mr Bates shouting: "Don't be breaking like a f***ing fanny, just drive your f**king car."

Shortly afterwards Mr Bates overtook Donohoe's Toyota Rav 4 and mounted a central island before cutting in on the Dublin man, who later claimed he feared he was going to be rammed off the road.

He drinks ten pints, and then drives himself home?

At least only the drunken ****er died, and he didn't hit a car full of kids head on with his Mitsubishi Pajero!

=-=

I don't agree with him being killed, but at least the lunatic is off the road permanently.

M cebee

and a parent who reacts in this way is putting their child at risk themselves

Gillo

No I don't think every parent would have done the exact same, what I do think is the vast majority of parents would have at that stage got quite confrontational.
The victim, was by all accounts driving very aggressively putting both the accused and his child's life at risk. I'm not saying its as simple as Jackal & Hyde, but try this; go down to your local primary school or local football club, threaten to slap some child around the head and see how the parents react.

I agree that the outcome was both extreme and unfortunate but at the same time the victim was asking for a good hiding the was he was acting.

M cebee

Gillo wrote: »

No I don't think every parent would have done the exact same, what I do think is the vast majority of parents would have at that stage got quite confrontational.
The victim, was by all accounts driving very aggressively putting both the accused and his child's life at risk. I'm not saying its as simple as Jackal & Hyde, but try this; go down to your local primary school or local football club, threaten to slap some child around the head and see how the parents react.

I agree that the outcome was both extreme and unfortunate but at the same time the victim was asking for a good hiding the was he was acting.

he was asking for a good hiding

so you approve or what?

iphone4g

He was no ****ing angel himself!!

Donohoe, who has four previous convictions including arson and threatening and abusive behaviour, was out on bail on the arson charge at the time of the road rage attack.

As his victim lay critically ill in hospital, Donohoe told gardai "I hope he f***ing dies -- he got what he deserved."

seamus

M cebee wrote: »

he was asking for a good hiding

so you approve or what?

Making an observation that someone's actions were leading them towards getting a hiding, isn't approval of that hiding.

If you act like a gob****e then sooner or later you will cross someone that you shouldn't. That's not condoning the hiding, just stating a simple fact.

fryup

are we allowed to chat about a on-going case?

.ak

Paternal instinct; man almost tries to ram you off the road with your child in the car. I'm sure instinct kicks in and judgement is impaired, he saw red and probably couldn't control the natural instinct to protect his child; even with violence.

However he obviously realizes his lapse in judgement and has pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

seamus

fryup wrote: »

are we allowed to chat about a on-going case?

The case is complete, he's to be sentenced next Monday, so there's no risk of subjudice.

Gillo

Gillo wrote: »

Pretty much every parent will disagree with you, I'm normally a very passive guy but put my daughter at risk and there's a big change................

You'd hit a chap on the head with a hurley after the threat has passed so as he lies on the ground?

M cebee

.ak wrote: »

Paternal instinct; man almost tries to ram you off the road with your child in the car. I'm sure instinct kicks in and judgement is impaired, he saw red and probably couldn't control the natural instinct to protect his child; even with violence.

However he obviously realizes his lapse in judgement and has pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

ya like he regretted his previous convictions

Henry Ford III

Serious fault on both sides imho. Drink driving is contemptable, road rage is thuggish, and laying into someone with a hurley for any reason inexcusable.

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote: »

.............. laying into someone with a hurley for any reason inexcusable.

I wouldn't go that far, in this case I would agree 100% though.

M cebee

some awful bs posted here

31 year old white knight with previous convictions protects his daughter by beating drunken old man on the ground with a hurley

gimme a break

fryup

fryup wrote: »

are we allowed to chat about a on-going case?

seamus wrote: »

The case is complete, he's to be sentenced next Monday, so there's no risk of subjudice.

well then it isn't complete, shouldn't we wait till then in fairness

fryup

fryup wrote: »

well then it isn't complete, shouldn't we wait till then in fairness

Why?
I can't see a discussion on here or anywhere else having any effect on the sentence the chap receives.

italodisco

I can't believe that some posters are on the side of a killer ....
I had a guy going ape **** at me in traffic today , flashy merc, 50+ in a suit .... For all I know he could have been coked up as he sure acted it .... I've got one hell of a temper , and there was a wheel brace on the floor as I just changed a wheel yesterday .... Did I get out and batter him ? NO ......

Regardless of child safety / dangerous driving/ DUI it doesn't give you an excuse to floor someone and then wack them while on the floor with a hurl or any stick /weapon .....

And if you give a ****e about your child you won't put your own life at risk by getting out of your car like that because u don't know if the other clown has a knife ........ Any decent parent wouldn't want to let their child witness such behaviour....

Total **** , both of them , but nobody deserves to die over such things for eff sake ......and nobody deserves a light sentence for manslaughter after killing an unnarmed person with a weapon. I hope the judge makes a good bloody example this time, but this is Ireland where rape gets you 2 years but joyriders get 4 lol ..... Nuff said....

Stark

They're both thugs. Just happy fortune that they both happened to meet each other that day and not some innocent third party.

italodisco wrote:

I hope the judge makes a good bloody example this time, but this is Ireland where rape gets you 2 years but joyriders get 4 lol ..... Nuff said....

Takes a string of convictions in the double digits before joyriders eventually get sentenced though (and half the time they end up wrapped around a tree/lamppost before the law gets to them).

italodisco

Stark wrote: »

They're both thugs. Just happy fortune that they both happened to meet each other that day and not some innocent third party.

italodisco wrote:

I hope the judge makes a good bloody example this time, but this is Ireland where rape gets you 2 years but joyriders get 4 lol ..... Nuff said....

Takes a string of convictions in the double digits before joyriders eventually get sentenced though (and half the time they end up wrapped around a tree/lamppost before the law gets to them).

A string of convictions?? I deal with young brats in my line of work from time to time and they might have 5 or 6 minor convictions when they are locked up ..... Then prison turns them into worse little p*ri*is ...... It was just an example .....

And it was no 'happy fortune' that day .... A man lost his life and a child will temporarily lose its father , no matter how u look at it there is no fortune at all......

Has to be the ridiculous post of the morning , really does ..

Stark

Well I'm sure you'd like it if everyone was free to race around drunk off their heads as much as they like without consequence, maybe running over a few schoolkids on the way and the like but I won't shed a tear if they meet a tree or a lampost or whatever before they hit a human. Given the choice between Mr. Ten Pints meeting Mr. Hurley and meeting a group of kids out on the streets in Sandymount, I make no apologies for preferring the former.

I'd be very surprised to hear if people were getting 4 years after "minor convictions" for joyriding but I guess it depends on what your definition of "minor conviction" is. Presumably the 2 years in the rape cases is for "minor rapes" as well.

Guy:Incognito

The guy is killed in a violent road road incident where he was drunk and the victim impact statement chooses to go on about how he was a peacefull non violent man and how his sons have lost their drinkign buddy? :rolleyes:


Obviously no one should have been killed but things are what they are. The guy with the hurl will be locked up and the other guy wont drink drive again. Nothing you can do to bring him back. His own actions led to his downfall so while I'm not going to support someone for killing him, I wouldnt condemn him as strongly as if it was a random attack.

copeyhagen

"He had respect for law and order ... never a man of violence," he added.

yeh, that sounds like the victim alright :rolleyes:

omega666

.ak wrote: »

Paternal instinct; man almost tries to ram you off the road with your child in the car. I'm sure instinct kicks in and judgement is impaired, he saw red and probably couldn't control the natural instinct to protect his child; even with violence.

However he obviously realizes his lapse in judgement and has pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

I love the way the child is being used by some as an excuse for him killing someone. I would wager a bet the guy couldnt give a **** about the child and was just a hot head who had obviously issues controling his temper.

After all he wasnt thinking of his child as they watched daddy beating some guy to death with a hurley right in front of them.

While the drunk driver was obviously no saint in this either, road rage incidents have happened to everyone but i'm never going to get out of my car and beat someone around the place.

M cebee

omega666 wrote: »

.ak wrote: »

Paternal instinct; man almost tries to ram you off the road with your child in the car. I'm sure instinct kicks in and judgement is impaired, he saw red and probably couldn't control the natural instinct to protect his child; even with violence.

However he obviously realizes his lapse in judgement and has pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

I love the way the child is being used by some as an excuse for him killing someone. I would wager a bet the guy couldnt give a **** about the child and was just a hot head who had obviously issues controling his temper.

After all he wasnt thinking of his child as they watched daddy beating some guy to death with a hurley right in front of them.

While the drunk driver was obviously no saint in this either, road rage incidents have happened to everyone but i'm never going to get out of my car and beat someone around the place.

indeed

violent thug meets drunk driver
and beats him about the head while child looks on


not as some people here would have us believe,angry father reacts when his child is at risk

italodisco

Absolutely no point posting here when retards missinterp. Or don't understand your post.....lord have mercy lol ....so now I condone drink driving lol ya

Jimbob 83

Thick old man gets sloshed and acts threateningly with his jeep putting thick young mans child in danger, thick old man gets out of jeep for a controntation he has won many times being his usual thick self probably with young drivers or lone women, but instead he meet's thick young man.

Like why even get out of the jeep, just drive on you drunk old fart if you really want to go home and don't want a confrontation, the minute the rav4 let him pass and he continued acting the ass is when he set the whole thing in motion and it became untenable to the point of a confrontation, i feel sorry for the 31 year old who has to live with this his child who had to witness it and the drunken mans family tbh.

the_syco

Jimbob 83 wrote: »

thick old man gets out of jeep for a controntation he has won many times being his usual thick self probably with young drivers or lone women, but instead he meet's thick young man.

Agreed. It was only a matter of time before one of two things happened: the drunken fool mow some kids down, or someone fights back.

That's the thing about road rage: you never know who you're f**king with.

positron

Just one thing to add - I read that after the incident Mr 10 pints got up and drove home. So that changes a lot of things. It's not like Mr. Hurley just hit him until he saw the brains spattered on the tarmac.

Radharc na Sleibhte

Really, if the lad with the hurley had an ounce of sense, he'd have called the cops as soon as he smelled the alcohol off the other fella.

What kinda person gets out of a car with hurley in hand for a fella tailing you?

Here's what I do, and its a mad one now, brace yourselves........
pull over and let him by and smile out my driver window like i know something he doesnt.

Big Nasty

positron wrote: »

Just one thing to add - I read that after the incident Mr 10 pints got up and drove home. So that changes a lot of things. It's not like Mr. Hurley just hit him until he saw the brains spattered on the tarmac.

Orly? o.O

positron

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Orly? o.O

From here

Seamus wrote: »

The fact that Bates got up and drove off afterwards would indicate to me that Donohue stopped attacking him because he didn't want to cause any more injury. If the intention had been to cause death or serious injury, he wouldn't have stopped and he wouldn't have let Bates get up and drive off. So manslaughter it is.

Veloce

positron wrote: »

Just one thing to add - I read that after the incident Mr 10 pints got up and drove home. So that changes a lot of things. It's not like Mr. Hurley just hit him until he saw the brains spattered on the tarmac.

No it does not change anything. The man still died from being struck over the head with a Hurley.