Dubliner kills two kids and walks free

chinacup

MonaPizza wrote: »

I'm surprised that nobody is blaming the kids like they normally do.....

"What was a 5 year-old doing with a 2 year-old at a traffic light?"
"Where were the parents?"
"Who lets 2 small children stand on the side of a 50kmh road?"

...blah blah.

Can't stand that particular brand of stupidity. Witnessed a traumatic incident in Galway this week (the kid who got caught in the elevator.. unfortunately I was one of the few people who saw the whole thing) and some fool posts on facebook "what an irresponsible parent leaving her child unattended" left her a piece of my mind to say the least. Just to clarify- the mother was on her own with 3 young kids who were extremely well behaved and he climbed out of the pram before she could stop him it was a complete accident. People who react like that need to cop the fk on and not speculate when they have no clue what their on about.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

seamus wrote: »

Fair play to this guy manning up and doing his time. Plenty of lesser people would have made a run for it and put themselves out of reach of the authorities.

Manning up? You're kidding right?He fought tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme court to avoid doing his sentence, now he has struck a deal , and he only did that because if he ever left Ireland, even on a holiday, the Hungarians would have had him extradited from any other country he was in.

December2012

arf91 wrote: »

Can't stand that particular brand of stupidity. Witnessed a traumatic incident in Galway this week (the kid who got caught in the elevator.. unfortunately I was one of the few people who saw the whole thing) and some fool posts on facebook "what an irresponsible parent leaving her child unattended" left her a piece of my mind to say the least. Just to clarify- the mother was on her own with 3 young kids who were extremely well behaved and he climbed out of the pram before she could stop him it was a complete accident. People who react like that need to cop the fk on and not speculate when they have no clue what their on about.

I genuinely hope you're ok. I often wonder about people who witness traumatic accidents / emergency services.

karma_

seamus wrote: »

Fair play to this guy manning up and doing his time. Plenty of lesser people would have made a run for it and put themselves out of reach of the authorities.

I threw up a little reading this.

seamus

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Manning up? You're kidding right?He fought tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme court to avoid doing his sentence, now he has struck a deal , and he only did that because if he ever left Ireland, even on a holiday, the Hungarians would have had him extradited from any other country he was in.

As any of us would if we believed we had been wrongly convicted.

This guy has agreed to serve his sentence even though he believes he's been wrongly convicted. That takes a lot of balls IMO.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

seamus wrote: »

As any of us would if we believed we had been wrongly convicted.

This guy has agreed to serve his sentence even though he believes he's been wrongly convicted. That takes a lot of balls IMO.

He thinks he was wrongly convicted!!!! Get real, you are now saying that any criminal who disputes his crime and the Courts verdict should have the option of not doing their sentence?
I can see the Headlines already, "Dundons walk free after saying they don't agree that they are guilty!"

seamus

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

He thinks he was wrongly convicted!!!! Get real, you are now saying that any criminal who disputes his crime and the Courts verdict should have the option of not doing their sentence?

Every convicted person has the right to appeal. This guy did appeal and the supreme court upheld it.

When Amanda Knox is found guilty again of murder in Italy in absentia, I guess you'd say she's a despicable person for fighting extradition requests?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

seamus wrote: »

Every convicted person has the right to appeal. This guy did appeal and the supreme court upheld it.

When Amanda Knox is found guilty again of murder in Italy in absentia, I guess you'd say she's a despicable person for fighting extradition requests?

The Supreme Court here did not uphold his appeal against conviction, the Hungarian Courts sentenced him. The Supreme Court refused his extradition on a technicality, nothing else.
The lowlife spent years trying to avoid paying for his crime, now he has done a deal, because without it he could never set foot outside Ireland without fear that in any other country he would be extradited to Hungary.

seamus

Grounds for extradition are usually based on the nature of the conviction. So fighting an extradition is pretty much the same as appealing the conviction itself, just in a different jurisdiction. One of the primary grounds on which the extradition was refused was due to the questionable nature of the evidence and behaviour of the police.

But you're saying that in the same position you would have immediately turned around and headed back to Hungary to serve the jail sentence?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

seamus wrote: »

Grounds for extradition are usually based on the nature of the conviction. So appealing an extradition is pretty much the same as appealing the conviction itself, just in a different jurisidiction.

That is one of the most childish and uneducated posts I have read in quite some time.
The Supreme Court did not deal with conviction at all, the dealt with whether he had "fled" Hungary or had been allowed to leave.
I would suggest that anyone who has even a cursory interest in the case or the law generally, or who even just read the press reports from the Irish Courts on this case would know that.
Tobin is a self serving lowlife who has finally run out of options, nothing more, nothing less.

chinacup

December2012 wrote: »

I genuinely hope you're ok. I often wonder about people who witness traumatic accidents / emergency services.

Ill be fine but its not the kind of thing u can put aside easily trust me. The most important part is to spare a thought for the family and maybe be reminded how fragile+important life is.. not speculate and blame the people who are most affected by it.

ahnowbrowncow

seamus wrote: »

Fair play to this guy manning up and doing his time. Plenty of lesser people would have made a run for it and put themselves out of reach of the authorities.

He killed two kids due to his reckless driving over 13 years ago driving and hasn't served any of it.

His guilty verdict was upheld on appeal.

Not sure why you are applauding someone who has ran from his punishment for over 13 years after killing two children.

mrsbyrne

arf91 wrote: »

Ill be fine but its not the kind of thing u can put aside easily trust me. The most important part is to spare a thought for the family and maybe be reminded how fragile+important life is.. not speculate and blame the people who are most affected by it.

My deepest sympathy to you.
I would be totally traumatised.
The folks who jump in quickly to pass judgment are generally those who can only feel complete themselves when condemning others.
More to be pitied than anything else.

Pro Hoc Vice

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

He killed two kids due to his reckless driving over 13 years ago driving and hasn't served any of it.

His guilty verdict was upheld on appeal.

Not sure why you are applauding someone who has ran from his punishment for over 13 years after killing two children.

He has already served 7 months of the 18 month sentence.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

infosys wrote: »

He has already served 7 months of the 18 month sentence.

Actually he served 7 months while fighting extradition to Hungary to serve his sentence, but as part of the deal he has done it will be allowed against his sentence by the Hungarian authorities.

seamus

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

That is one of the most childish and uneducated posts I have read in quite some time.

...and the insults come out. A sure sign of someone who's arguing from emotion and not from rationality.

You're right, I was mistaken. I misread the times report and cobbled that together with my rough memory of the incident, I was mistaken as to the nature of the appeal.

Tobin is a self serving lowlife who has finally run out of options, nothing more, nothing less.

So, you seem to have forgotten to answer the question at the end of my post.
If you found yourself convicted in absentia for a crime you dispute and subject to custodial sentence in a foreign (and significantly poorer) country, you would hop on the first plane over there to serve your time? Because you're not a lowlife, and only lowlifes fight extradition, right?

ahnowbrowncow

infosys wrote: »

He has already served 7 months of the 18 month sentence.

I missed that he had spent 7 months in an Irish prison. But his sentence is 3 years but he is eligible for parole after 18 months is it not?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

[QUOTE=seamus;88482393
If you found yourself convicted in absentia for a crime you dispute and subject to custodial sentence in a foreign (and significantly poorer) country, you would hop on the first plane over there to serve your time? Because you're not a lowlife, and only lowlifes fight extradition, right?[/QUOTE]

This lowlife was only sentenced in absentia because he ran away like the scumbag he is.
What did you expect the Hungarians to do, say "ah well since he legged it we'll just forget about it"????
To answer your question, I wouldn't have skipped bail.

seamus

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

This lowlife was only sentenced in absentia because he ran away like the scumbag he is.
What did you expect the Hungarians to do, say "ah well since he legged it we'll just forget about it"????
To answer your question, I wouldn't have skipped bail.

He didn't flee or skip bail. In fact, this is the very reason why the first attempt to extradite him failed; because he had not run away from the authorities.

No proceedings were brought against him until his overseas work had completed and he and his family had already returned home.

In fact, not only that, he returned to Hungary for work a month later and left again a month after that, unimpeded. Sounds like a man on the run alright.

There's a big pile of facts here, for anyone who wants to read them:
http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/1b0757edc371032e802572ea0061450e/4ca2ae8b10c86e7480257a22004f3a7b?OpenDocument

You didn't actually answer my question. You avoided it. Which means that presumably your answer is that you would in fact fight your extradition. Like any of us would, especially given the facts laid out in the document above.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

seamus wrote: »

You didn't actually answer my question. You avoided it. Which means that presumably your answer is that you would in fact fight your extradition. Like any of us would, especially given the facts laid out in the document above.

I answered it clearly, unlike this lowlife I would not have run away , skipped in the first place (he was allowed leave temporarily for family reasons, but broke his word and failed to turn up for his trial) so the matter wouldn't arise. Since unlike your hero I wouldn't have ran away there would be no extradition to fight.

seamus

So you would have just waited around in Hungary with no employment for a case which may or may not have surfaced?

Sure you would.

He hadn't been charged with anything when he left Hungary (twice!). Yet he's a lowlife for not hanging around.

Gotta love the pitchforks on AH.

Pro Hoc Vice

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I missed that he had spent 7 months in an Irish prison. But his sentence is 3 years but he is eligible for parole after 18 months is it not?

The Hungarian Court said he must serve at least 18 months, the confusion around this issue was one of the reasons in the SC decision. So it has been agreed he will return start sentence then on application to serve sentence in Ireland he will be returned and serve sentence upto 18 months in total.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

This lowlife was only sentenced in absentia because he ran away like the scumbag he is.
What did you expect the Hungarians to do, say "ah well since he legged it we'll just forget about it"????
To answer your question, I wouldn't have skipped bail.

He did not skip bail, that was the first decision in the case, if he had fled he would have been returned. While I would say I hope I would if in this position stand trial, I accept in reality I could not answer that question with any degree of certainty being flawed as I am. Fair play to you having such high morals.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

seamus wrote: »

So you would have just waited around in Hungary with no employment for a case which may or may have surfaced?

Sure you would.

He hadn't been charged with anything when he left Hungary (twice!). Yet he's a lowlife for not hanging around.

Gotta love the pitchforks on AH.

Nah , unlike this scumbag, once I was aware that I had to return to face trial I would have done exactly that.
He is the lowest of the low a child killer with no conscience or moral compass.
Hopefully the Hungarian authorities will mislay his paper work for the next 11 months.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Nah , unlike this scumbag, once I was aware that I had to return to face trial I would have done exactly that.
He is the lowest of the low a child killer with no conscience or moral compass.
Hopefully the Hungarian authorities will mislay his paper work for the next 11 months.

Did you read any of the SC decision. Fact is under Hungarian law he did not have to be in Hungary for the trial or the Appeal. So your statement should read "Once I was aware that I had to return to serve the prison sentence I would have done exactly that."

johnnyskeleton

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

The Supreme Court here did not uphold his appeal against conviction, the Hungarian Courts sentenced him. The Supreme Court refused his extradition on a technicality, nothing else.
The lowlife spent years trying to avoid paying for his crime, now he has done a deal, because without it he could never set foot outside Ireland without fear that in any other country he would be extradited to Hungary.

What exactly is a technicality in your mind? If the law is that you can only be surrendered in certain circumstances, and those circumstances don't apply to you, should you be surrendered anyway?

Should judges just make the law up as they go along, just to prevent anyone getting off on a technicality? Because that's the logic of what you are saying

bigdone

If the driver was hungarian wouldn't end up like this...

seamus

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Nah , unlike this scumbag, once I was aware that I had to return to face trial I would have done exactly that.

Still failing to answer my question I see, inventing false scenarios that didn't occur.
To refresh your memory, this is the question:
"If you found yourself convicted in absentia for a crime you dispute and subject to custodial sentence in a foreign (and significantly poorer) country, you would hop on the first plane over there to serve your time? Because you're not a lowlife, and only lowlifes fight extradition, right?"

Sir Humphrey Appleby

seamus wrote: »

Still failing to answer my question I see, inventing false scenarios that didn't occur.
To refresh your memory, this is the question:
"If you found yourself convicted in absentia for a crime you dispute and subject to custodial sentence in a foreign (and significantly poorer) country, you would hop on the first plane over there to serve your time? Because you're not a lowlife, and only lowlifes fight extradition, right?"

Wise up will you for the third time I wouldn't be convicted in absentia because I wouldn't run away and hide from my trial, ok, get it now? It is impossible to be tried in absentia if you choose to attend your trial, which this lowlife didn't do.
You repeated refusal to accept my unequivocal answer to your question, in order I presume to make your hero look good brings to my mind the age old adage:
"never argue with an idiot, he will just drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".:rolleyes:
I'll leave this thread now, circular argument is circular!

Pro Hoc Vice

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Wise up will you for the third time I wouldn't be convicted in absentia because I wouldn't run away and hide from my trial, ok, get it now? It is impossible to be tried in absentia if you choose to attend your trial, which this lowlife didn't do.
You repeated refusal to accept my unequivocal answer to your question, in order I presume to make your hero look good brings to my mind the age old adage:
"never argue with an idiot, he will just drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".:rolleyes:
I'll leave this thread now, circular argument is circular!

You really have not read the judgement of the Supreme Court, have you? You also throw about insults to people, not a great way to put forward your point.