Student dies from fatal stabbing

fullstop

Monty Burnz wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Great reply, did it take you log to write that?

Monty Burnz

fullstop wrote: »

Great reply, did it take you log to write that?

Longer than it deserved...

Tipsy McSwagger

Have to laugh at the people calling these scumbags children. They are 16 and know the difference between right and wrong. I hope they get a good arse hammering in prison.

MaxSteele

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A 16 year old child, don't forget.
Probably didn't think it was result in death to carry a knife. A 23 man should not have gone down and confronted them once let alone twice

Much worse was the story where an elder brother let is 16 brother take a knife out from the kitchen. That resulted in death also. Coolock UCI if I recall. Brother should have been charged.

I was 16 a few years ago, yet I wasn't that inbred and ruthless to willingly get into confrontations and return to stab my opponent. Silly argument.

It's also Dolphin's Barn and Rialto don't forget. Pretty obvious who the scumbags and aggressors were here.

Death and Taxes

MaxSteele wrote: »

I was 16 a few years ago, yet I wasn't that inbred and ruthless to willingly get into confrontations and return to stab my opponent. Silly argument.

It's also Dolphin's Barn and Rialto don't forget. Pretty obvious who the scumbags and aggressors were here.

Jawohl, Zee Greater German Reich has never been an aggressor ( apart from starting two world wars, massacring 13,000,000 in death camps, and now demanding the right to run Europe)

Get my point, it is dangerous to go making generalized and trite assumptions.

Monty Burnz

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Jawohl, Zee Greater German Reich has never been an aggressor ( apart from starting two world wars, massacring 13,000,000 in death camps, and now demanding the right to run Europe)

Get my point, it is dangerous to go making geralized and trite assumptions.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that the German post-grads were not members of the 3rd Reich.

Death and Taxes

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that the German post-grads were not members of the 3rd Reich.

I'll go out on a limb and say the whole population of Dolphins Barn and Rialto are not aggresive scumbags!

Ray Palmer

MaxSteele wrote: »

I was 16 a few years ago, yet I wasn't that inbred and ruthless to willingly get into confrontations and return to stab my opponent. Silly argument.

It's also Dolphin's Barn and Rialto don't forget. Pretty obvious who the scumbags and aggressors were here.

You were a child then and he is a child now. Easily avoided by not going down to them. The older you get the more you realise how clueless you were when younger.
At 16 you know right from wrong but you might not see unsuspected consequences. Go to threaten somebody with a knife but don't think you will stab and kill them

JJayoo

Its all about the money, More convictions = more "free" legal aid = more tax payers money for the solicitors, and how they try so very hard to get the scumbags off. Every trick in the book.

Procrastastudy

JJayoo wrote: »

Its all about the money, More convictions = more "free" legal aid = more tax payers money for the solicitors, and how they try so very hard to get the scumbags off. Every trick in the book.

That's the only way an adversarial system of justice can work. Otherwise what's the point in having a trial - you're from Ballymun and near the area straight to jail.

Kenny Logins

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A 16 year old child, don't forget.
Probably didn't think it was result in death to carry a knife. A 23 man should not have gone down and confronted them once let alone twice

Much worse was the story where an elder brother let is 16 brother take a knife out from the kitchen. That resulted in death also. Coolock UCI if I recall. Brother should have been charged.

No, you'd need to be at least 17 to know that stabbing somebody with a knife would do serious harm. :rolleyes:

MaxSteele

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You were a child then and he is a child now. Easily avoided by not going down to them. The older you get the more you realise how clueless you were when younger.
At 16 you know right from wrong but you might not see unsuspected consequences. Go to threaten somebody with a knife but don't think you will stab and kill them

Normal, non scumbag 16 year olds don't brandish knives and use them though, especially when fully aware and sober. Same way you and I didn't at that age.

The two lads were local scummers probably from the Dolphin's Barn estate. It's kind of a no brainer why and where it happened.

Chain_reaction

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You were a child then and he is a child now. Easily avoided by not going down to them. The older you get the more you realise how clueless you were when younger.
At 16 you know right from wrong but you might not see unsuspected consequences. Go to threaten somebody with a knife but don't think you will stab and kill them

So you're blaming the victim?

I lived around the Herberton for two years, he was probably the first person to ever stick up to the scumbags. But I suppose this kind of behavior is to be expected when your parents let you aged 9/10 walk up and down Harold Ville avenue at 11.30 on a school night kicking wing mirrors and car windows in.


I only walked down St.Anthonys road once while there.

Death and Taxes

Chain_reaction wrote: »

So you're blaming the victim?

I lived around the Herberton for two years, he was probably the first person to ever stick up to the scumbags. But I suppose this kind of behavior is to be expected when your parents let you aged 9/10 walk up and down Harold Ville avenue at 11.30 on a school night kicking wing mirrors and car windows in.


I only walked down St.Anthonys road once while there.

So you are mitigating the actions of alleged criminals based upon their upbringing and poor parenting.

Well done , now you are making progress.

Procrastastudy

I 100% agree with people with bad backgrounds being allowed to bring that in to mitigation at sentencing. I would however create statutory crimes for poor parenting and then prosecute the parents. I might even make relying on such mitigation dependent on giving evidence against them.

Perhaps people might keep a bit better control of their little darlings or perhaps even not have them in the first place.

shaneoreillyo

I was staying up in Rialto Friday night and saw an ambulance passing at 6:20 in the morning when i was leaving with a man in the back very badly cut up. Presume this is it. He was blonde.

Fight_Night

Not in any way defending the scumbags that did this however, if the 16 year olds were the victims, they would be 16 year old kids. If they are the attackers they are suddenly adults? How does that work?

Death and Taxes

shaneoreillyo wrote: »

I was staying up in Rialto Friday night and saw an ambulance passing at 6:20 in the morning when i was leaving with a man in the back very badly cut up. Presume this is it. He was blonde.

It passed really slowly with the doors open?

shaneoreillyo

WileyCoyote wrote: »

It passed really slowly with the doors open?

It was right outside the house by the luas line at that junction and had to slow somewhat at the bumps. Clear window. He was propped up could see the neck, so ya

El Siglo

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I 100% agree with people with bad backgrounds being allowed to bring that in to mitigation at sentencing. I would however create statutory crimes for poor parenting and then prosecute the parents. I might even make relying on such mitigation dependent on giving evidence against them.

Perhaps people might keep a bit better control of their little darlings or perhaps even not have them in the first place.

No, that's not how it works.

16 year old does the crime (along with the 23 year old) therefore he is held accountable before the law, not his parents. What if he had actually decent parents and horror of horrors actually decided to become like a scumbag?

I'm sick of people using their backgrounds as some sort of an excuse to act like a shithead. It doesn't happen anywhere else in civil society, why should it happen in cases like this? We've all had our fair of shit, some have worse parents or possibly no parents at all and manage to get on with life.

Terrible situation, but I doubt they'll get a severe enough sentence.

Death and Taxes

El Siglo wrote: »

No, that's not how it works.

16 year old does the crime (along with the 23 year old) therefore he is held accountable before the law, not his parents. What if he had actually decent parents and horror of horrors actually decided to become like a scumbag?

I'm sick of people using their backgrounds as some sort of an excuse to act like a shithead. It doesn't happen anywhere else in civil society, why should it happen in cases like this? We've all had our fair of shit, some have worse parents or possibly no parents at all and manage to get on with life.

Terrible situation, but I doubt they'll get a severe enough sentence.[/QUOTE]

Any chance you will settle for "them" being charged, evidence being tested in court , and a jury returning a verdict before we get to criticise the inadequate sentence!

El Siglo

WileyCoyote wrote: »

El Siglo wrote: »

No, that's not how it works.

16 year old does the crime (along with the 23 year old) therefore he is held accountable before the law, not his parents. What if he had actually decent parents and horror of horrors actually decided to become like a scumbag?

I'm sick of people using their backgrounds as some sort of an excuse to act like a shithead. It doesn't happen anywhere else in civil society, why should it happen in cases like this? We've all had our fair of shit, some have worse parents or possibly no parents at all and manage to get on with life.

Terrible situation, but I doubt they'll get a severe enough sentence.[/QUOTE]

Any chance you will settle for "them" being charged, evidence being tested in court , and a jury returning a verdict before we get to criticise the inadequate sentence!

Oh I'm sorry, did you not forget that this was AH?

PizzamanIRL

Of course if the scumbags were on their own, nothing would have happened.

But of course they were unarmed at first and must have had their egos hurt so they had to go get knives to 'show them who's boss'

Cowards.

Fighting Irish

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You should of read the account. The adult brother let an agitated, intoxicated teen come in root around for a steak knife and leave. He made a vague attempt to stop him but let him go out.

Ye it was silly letting the bro do that but I still stand by what i said

Ray Palmer

Chain_reaction wrote: »

So you're blaming the victim?

There is no doubt he should not have gone down once let alone TWICE. A grown adult should know better.

shaneoreillyo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There is no doubt he should not have gone down once let alone TWICE. A grown adult should know better.

That's silly. The lads obviously did something second time around aswell probably threw a stone or kept shouting or something, I know at 18 if some scummer turned outside my gaf id ask them too move on. He hardly thought they where going to stab them? Then yet again they are scum

Procrastastudy

El Siglo wrote: »

No, that's not how it works.

Not how what works? Background is frequently used in mitigation

El Siglo wrote: »

16 year old does the crime (along with the 23 year old) therefore he is held accountable before the law, not his parents. What if he had actually decent parents and horror of horrors actually decided to become like a scumbag?

Then the parents would be not be guilty would they?

El Siglo wrote: »

I'm sick of people using their backgrounds as some sort of an excuse to act like a shithead. It doesn't happen anywhere else in civil society, why should it happen in cases like this? We've all had our fair of shit, some have worse parents or possibly no parents at all and manage to get on with life.

Define civil society. Many countries allow background to be used in mitigation. I presume there is some scientific background as to why.

El Siglo wrote: »

Terrible situation, but I doubt they'll get a severe enough sentence.

Severe enough to do what exactly? Do you have any idea what happens when you combine a broken prison system with social deprivation and then throw long sentences into the mix? I'm sure you do actually - it's called the US system.

Lawrence1895

Whatever sentence they get, I hope, they will be taught a lesson...just in case, someone follows their footsteps

Aciiiiiiiiiiid

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Not how what works? Background is frequently used in mitigation



Then the parents would be not be guilty would they?



Define civil society. Many countries allow background to be used in mitigation. I presume there is some scientific background as to why.



Severe enough to do what exactly? Do you have any idea what happens when you combine a broken prison system with social deprivation and then throw long sentences into the mix? I'm sure you do actually - it's called the US system.

The streets of the vast majority of the US are safer than here. High prison population means more criminals behind bars = safer streets. We don't have the space in prison to accommodate all the criminals in Ireland, which results in bs suspended sentences for serious crime, 5 years for murder, people with 200+ convictions walking the streets, etc. I never understand why or how people can criticize the US prison system, without taking a long hard look at our own.

These guys would probably be on death row for this crime in some states, here they'll get 3-4 years with some suspended for "good behaviour" and they'll be out free again to stab your brother/dad/uncle/friend/etc to death.

Gordon Gecko

Judges ought to be able to set a minimum term that people sentenced to life in prison must serve before being eligible for early release. It is a disgrace that under current legislation they cannot. I don't think even the most die hard liberal will dispute that.