Another Shameful example of Our broken justice System.

jfallon

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/thug-gets-13-years-in-jail-for-beating-teen-like-a-rag-doll-until-he-died-3333698.html

I remember been shocked to the pit of my stomach upon hearing about this murder. An innocent young man, practically a child, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was set upon by this subhuman animal. How the courts describe this crime as manslaughter baffles me! To think that this monster will be back on our streets in 13yrs or less is frightening!

big_joe_joyce

jfallon wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/thug-gets-13-years-in-jail-for-beating-teen-like-a-rag-doll-until-he-died-3333698.html

I remember been shocked to the pit of my stomach upon hearing about this murder. An innocent young man, practically a child, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was set upon by this subhuman animal. How the courts describe this crime as manslaughter baffles me! To think that this monster will be back on our streets in 13yrs or less is frightening!

im pretty sure the convicted guy was a traveller

Kylo Ren

big_joe_joyce wrote: »

im pretty sure the convicted guy was a traveller

So?

triple-M

big_joe_joyce wrote: »

im pretty sure the convicted guy was a traveller

are you a traveller mr joyce?

MaxSteele

No doubt Mr Wards minority status resulted in his farcical 13 year sentence.

sfwcork

Im just guessing here but would it have been manslaughter as he didnt intend on killing him... Rip the young lad

jfallon

sfwcork wrote: »

Im just guessing here but would it have been manslaughter as he didnt intend on killing him... Rip the young lad

Read the description of the crime in the article and think about that one again! He kicked his lifeless body for up to 10 mins!! In my view animals like this are beyond rehabilitation, there's only one way to deal with them!

iCosmopolis

No expert, but from what I've read over the last while is the courts here only seem to consider it murder if it'd been premeditated . So it's almost like if they think if dancing on someones head was spur of the moment, it's nearly accidental?:mad:

big_joe_joyce

Keno 92 wrote: »

So?

well the report says he was out on bail , plus he had been drinking all day and went looking for more drink

their are clues

woodoo

Pure savagery. He is a disgrace to the human race. I hope he meets a miserable end in prison. In fact i'd like to post him some rope.

jfallon

iCosmopolis wrote: »

No expert, but from what I've read over the last while is the courts here only seem to consider it murder if it'd been premeditated . So it's almost like if they think if dancing on someones head was spur of the moment, it's nearly accidental?:mad:

Its become ever more clearer that Our 'justice' system is incapable of dealing with these beasts, there's clearly no deterrent!

Tusky

Disgusting. This wasn't a punch in the head gone wrong (in which case I can understand manslaughter instead of murder) and he should have been sentenced to 20-30 years in my opinion. Our justice system is broken.

delta_bravo

Do you understand the difference between manslaughter and murder?

jfallon

delta_bravo wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between manslaughter and murder?

Yes I do and in my view this was murder, He clearly intended to kill him! He violently assaulted him until he was lifeless and then continued to dance on his head in view of several witnesses!!

myflipflops

Indo wrote:

Unemployed father-of-three Douglas Ward

Indo wrote:

Ward had killed Mr Dorr while he was in Dundalk answering a bail hearing that morning

Indo wrote:

Ward.... had been drinking all day after his court hearing

Indo wrote:

“Mr Dorr (victim) was trying to keep the peace,” added Det. Marry

Indo wrote:

A witness told gardai she saw Ward “bouncing” Mr Dorr's head off the road up to ten times and kicking him in the head a number of times.

Indo wrote:

After the incident, Ward and another male got a taxi to an off-licence where they bought more alcohol and returned to his home.

Paints a picture of a repeat criminal who viciously killed somebody for no good reason and then went about his usual routine of drinking himself into a stupor using money he gets from somewhere.

13 years when he will get out after maybe 9?

dvpower

iCosmopolis wrote: »

No expert, but from what I've read over the last while is the courts here only seem to consider it murder if it'd been premeditated .

That pretty much the definition.

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human,

jfallon

dvpower wrote: »

That pretty much the definition.

His intention was to kill and he made sure the job was done, he threatened passer bys who tried to intervene! How long does one have to have 'malice aforethought' for it to be murder?

sfwcork

jfallon wrote: »

Read the description of the crime in the article and think about that one again! He kicked his lifeless body for up to 10 mins!! In my view animals like this are beyond rehabilitation, there's only one way to deal with them!

I dont need to read it again.just because of the guys injuries it dosnt mean he intended to kill him,its clear he gave him well hell of a hammering.that doesnt mean he wanted to kill him.its manslaughter,simple as

syklops

in 13yrs or less is frightening!

To be honest, 13 years is not so bad. When I saw the thread title I was expecting to see 4 years, the final 2 suspended, which is a common occurrence. 13 years is a step in the right direction.

Wattle

sfwcork wrote: »

Im just guessing here but would it have been manslaughter as he didnt intend on killing him... Rip the young lad

After savagely beating him around the head for a full 10 minutes did he think that the lad would eventually get up and walk home?

Smidge

sfwcork wrote: »

I dont need to read it again.just because of the guys injuries it dosnt mean he intended to kill him,its clear he gave him well hell of a hammering.that doesnt mean he wanted to kill him.its manslaughter,simple as

I wonder does our justice system not have a model like the UK one where they use "The man in the street" analogy?

One or two punches and the poor lad dies afterwards?
I could see how this could be deemed manslaughter.

But when you repeatedly kick and pummel someone for an extended period of time, surely everyone knows that this will result in death and therefore must surely warrant a murder charge?

Pottler

If this young man who died was one of my sons, Mr Ward would be dreading the day he was released, not how long his sentence was. My sympathy goes out to Young Mr Dorrs family, but I doubt any amount of sympathy will make up for the loss of their son. RIP. Brutally murdered in my view, but then I'm not a judge. I've far too much common sense to be one.

jfallon

Smidge wrote: »

I wonder does our justice system not have a model like the UK one where they use "The man in the street" analogy?

One or two punches and the poor lad dies afterwards?
I could see how this could be deemed manslaughter.

But when you repeatedly kick and pummel someone for an extended period of time, surely everyone knows that this will result in death and therefore must surely warrant a murder charge?

Exactly, This wasn't a punch on the head in a split second! This was a continous and brutal assault in practically daylight, when passerbys attempted to intervene they were threatened and told to move on! Just goes to show you what respect animals of this calibre have for us and our society!!

dvpower

jfallon wrote: »

His intention was to kill and he made sure the job was done, he threatened passer bys who tried to intervene! How long does one have to have 'malice aforethought' for it to be murder?

I'm not sure that they put a specific time limit on it, but on reading the reports, this seemed to have been a spur of the moment thing and a manslaughter, not a murder.

Obviously a very serious manslaughter and the guy should be locked up for a very long time.

Scruffles

jfallon wrote: »

Read the description of the crime in the article and think about that one again! He kicked his lifeless body for up to 10 mins!! In my view animals like this are beyond rehabilitation, there's only one way to deal with them!

totaly agree with what are saying but its unfair on animals to compare them to the likes of him,he has complete understanding of what he is doing,animals do not have that level of thought process or mental capacity to be vindictive and torturous,this oxygen thief sounds like he may be in the pyschopath territory-the viciousness of his behavior without a thought and his attempt to get off by blaming anything but himself instead of showing the slightest bit of remorse,guilt,shock and self loathing for what he has done,the sooner he is locked away from all beings-preferably in solitary confinement,the better.

woodoo

sfwcork wrote: »

I dont need to read it again.just because of the guys injuries it dosnt mean he intended to kill him,its clear he gave him well hell of a hammering.that doesnt mean he wanted to kill him.its manslaughter,simple as

This is a case that proves certain types of manslaughter should carry the same tariff as murder.

Smidge

Moreover, I think I read/heard that the young lad was a martial arts expert or some such thing and refused to use his expertise in fighting the guy but just kept pleading with him to stop/calm down, obviously until the attacker got the better of him.

sfwcork

Wattle wrote: »

After savagely beating him around the head for a full 10 minutes did he think that the lad would eventually get up and walk home?

Listen i dont make the law.the law does state that this is manslaughter regardless.OF course this was a brutal crime and he gave the lad an awful beating.but the jury would have been asked that did the guy set out to kill the young lad before the assult.the fact is that he didnt go home and get a weapon.he gave the lad a hammering,an awful one of that.Im not defending his actions in any way and i hope the guy rots in jail but its manslaughter all day long

jfallon

Smidge wrote: »

Moreover, I think I read/heard that the young lad was a martial arts expert or some such thing and refused to use his expertise in fighting the guy but just kept pleading with him to stop/calm down, obviously until the attacker got the better of him.

The young lad was 18, looked about 9 stone. The beast was 36 looks about 20stone. I don't think martial arts would have done much good for him, plus the attacker was in a group of 6! All who have strangely escaped justice!

Strawberry Fields

Smidge wrote: »

I wonder does our justice system not have a model like the UK one where they use "The man in the street" analogy?

One or two punches and the poor lad dies afterwards?
I could see how this could be deemed manslaughter.

But when you repeatedly kick and pummel someone for an extended period of time, surely everyone knows that this will result in death and therefore must surely warrant a murder charge?

Murder requires an intention to kill or cause serious injury.


The court accepted he didn't intend to kill him in his own mind. It's subjective based on what the defendant believed not the man on the street.
It must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt an actual intention to cause death.
The DPP can appeal, however 13 years is one of the longer sentences for manslaughter.

sfwcork

jfallon wrote: »

His intention was to kill and he made sure the job was done, he threatened passer bys who tried to intervene! How long does one have to have 'malice aforethought' for it to be murder?

If his intention was to kill then why didnt he go look for him before the assult? I think your very loose with your meaning of intentions

Smidge

Were there witnesses before the attack began and also during it?

Pottler

godeas16 wrote: »

Murder requires an intention to kill or cause serious injury.


The court accepted he didn't intend to kill him in his own mind. It's subjective based on what the defendant believed not the man on the street.
It must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt an actual intention to cause death.
The DPP can appeal, however 13 years is one of the longer sentences for manslaughter.

Ah sure it's all clear now, if you kick some poor sod in the head for ten minutes, sure you were only intending to rattle him. What exactly do you need to do to meet the definition of murder? This crap is a bit like the whole "wounding with intent " rubbish and the "causing actual harm"guff. Totally divorced from reality. If I kick someone in the head for a few minutes, I intend to kill them, simple as. I'm not trying to clear their sinuses.

newmug

myflipflops wrote: »

13 years when he will get out after maybe 9?

It was actually 16 years with 3 suspended. I know its nowhere near enough, but I actually thought it was a nice change from the usual 2 years with 6 months suspended.

iCosmopolis

jfallon wrote: »

The young lad was 18, looked about 9 stone. The beast was 36 looks about 20stone. I don't think martial arts would have done much good for him, plus the attacker was in a group of 6! All who have strangely escaped justice!

And even if the young lad was a proficient black belt and could, and he'd bested him-he'd probably have come off worse. The law doesn't like self defence if you're a martial artist. I've known a few people landed in it because they could handle themselves.

big_joe_joyce

newmug wrote: »

It was actually 16 years with 3 suspended. I know its nowhere near enough, but I actually thought it was a nice change from the usual 2 years with 6 months suspended.

guy was out on bail , thats why the sentance was so long compared to the usual

Strawberry Fields

Pottler wrote: »

Ah sure it's all clear now, if you kick some poor sod in the head for ten minutes, sure you were only intending to rattle him. What exactly do you need to do to meet the definition of murder? This crap is a bit like the whole "wounding with intent " rubbish and the "causing actual harm"guff. Totally divorced from reality. If I kick someone in the head for a few minutes, I intend to kill them, simple as. I'm not trying to clear their sinuses.

legally it's complex, I'm just trying to explain the law, as I have a background in it, I don't agree with the courts findings personally, and I don't work for the DPP. However I can see how he got it down to manslaughter.

Wattle

sfwcork wrote: »

Listen i dont make the law.the law does state that this is manslaughter regardless.OF course this was a brutal crime and he gave the lad an awful beating.but the jury would have been asked that did the guy set out to kill the young lad before the assult.the fact is that he didnt go home and get a weapon.he gave the lad a hammering,an awful one of that.Im not defending his actions in any way and i hope the guy rots in jail but its manslaughter all day long

If I kicked and stamped on someone's head continuously for 10 minutes I would expect them to die or at the very least have irreversible brain damage. He was physically far stronger and bigger than his victim who wasn't even fighting back.

I know what the law says but in this case manslaughter and 13 years is an insult to the victims memory.

Zillah

I'd argue that viciously stamping on someone's head on the ground and smashing it against the ground shows intent to murder.

delta_bravo

The whole thing is quite subjective. There has to be definite evidence of intent. Unfortunately this was lacking.

Smidge

delta_bravo wrote: »

The whole thing is quite subjective. There has to be definite evidence of intent. Unfortunately this was lacking.

I asked a few posts back if there were any witnesses to the attack.
My reason for this question was that if this man was in such a rage when going to attack this kid, I would almost bet the farm that at some point he uttered "I'm gonna kill you ya little f*cker" or some variation on that.

Surely then this would be considered as malice of forethought or at the very least proved his intention??

Pottler

delta_bravo wrote: »

The whole thing is quite subjective. There has to be definite evidence of intent. Unfortunately this was lacking.

What was he intending by stamping his head into the ground?? Go on, define, legally, what he "intended" to happen??? If I get a kitten, kick it senseless and then stamp on its head, what do I "intend" to do? Utter shyte. If you're a parent, and you raised a child for all those years, loved them, fed them, worried about them and their future, nursed them through sickness and worked to keep them fed and watered, and then some cnut mong piece of garbage out on bail come here and I'll kick you around sonny me lad, kicks them to death in the gutter over some percieved slight, just how exactly would you feel if the verdict was "manslaughter"??? I know what the verdict would be on what I'd do to them, It'd be Murder, no question.

jfallon

Smidge wrote: »

I asked a few posts back if there were any witnesses to the attack.
My reason for this question was that if this man was in such a rage when going to attack this kid, I would almost bet the farm that at some point he uttered "I'm gonna kill you ya little f*cker" or some variation on that.

Surely then this would be considered as malice of forethought or at the very least proved his intention??

There were many witnesses from what I remember in reading of this, a lot i'd imagine afraid to testify due to this guys background from a certain lawless section of society..

Mr. Nice

sfwcork wrote: »

I dont need to read it again.just because of the guys injuries it dosnt mean he intended to kill him,its clear he gave him well hell of a hammering.that doesnt mean he wanted to kill him.its manslaughter,simple as

G'wan and troll someplace else, have you no bloody shame trying to defend what happened and the pathetic verdict? Would you say that in person to the victim's dad?

Strawberry Fields

Pottler wrote: »

What was he intending by stamping his head into the ground?? Go on, define, legally, what he "intended" to happen??? If I get a kitten, kick it senseless and then stamp on its head, what do I "intend" to do? Utter shyte.

only you know what you intend to do, as no one can read your mind.
However 2 lawyers could argue back and forth all day what you intended and then a judge would decide.

Mr. Nice

delta_bravo wrote: »

The whole thing is quite subjective. There has to be definite evidence of intent. Unfortunately this was lacking.

Read the article which was based on evidence given in court. Subjective my b***ix.

jfallon

Mr. Nice wrote: »

G'wan and troll someplace else, have you no bloody shame trying to defend what happened and the pathetic verdict? Would you say that in person to the victim's dad?

It was also shameful to see that RTE censored his opinion of the verdict!

El Weirdo

Pottler wrote: »

Brutally murdered in my view, but then I'm not a judge. I've far too much common sense to be one.

You do realise that the judge doesn't decide what the defendant is charged with?

godeas16 wrote: »

only you know what you intend to do, as no one can read your mind.
However 2 lawyers could argue back and forth all day what you intended and then a judge would decide.

No. A jury would decide.

The fact of the matter is that the DPP obviously decided that there was no way that they could get a murder conviction based on the evidence that they had.

Shitty, but there it is unfortunately.

Mr. Nice wrote: »

G'wan and troll someplace else, have you no bloody shame trying to defend what happened and the pathetic verdict? Would you say that in person to the victim's dad?

Pathetic verdict? Would you have preferred he was found not guilty?

Mr. Nice

sfwcork wrote: »

If his intention was to kill then why didnt he go look for him before the assult? I think your very loose with your meaning of intentions

Either you're a bit simple, or trying to get some sick pleasure from baiting people on here. In most sane people's minds dancing on the head of an unconscious person and repeatedly beating his head off the street demonstrates an intention to kill.
The victim's family may read your comments, I hope you are proud of yourself - Happy Christmas to you and to yours, I hope you never meet tragedy like this.

Strawberry Fields

look lads the DPP who prosecuted the case accepted the guilty plea to manslaughter and didn't push for murder. see herehttp://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/louth-man-pleads-guilty-to-killing-teenager-niall-dorr-3278197.html

vent/rant at them. I'm off to bed.

Strawberry Fields

El Weirdo wrote: »

You do realise that the judge doesn't decide what the defendant is charged with?

No. A jury would decide.




?

Actuall a judge directs the jury firstly on what theyr'e deciding.
But yeah it would be the jury ultimately.