Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tragic yet worrying scenes in waterford last night

Options
1…1516182021

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    DubVelo
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Really?
    Man accused of throwing bottle cleared of assault


    http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/man-accused-of-throwing-bottle-cleared-of-assault-1.1130293

    Really. I don't know why that person in a totally different case in a totally different country got off. Lack of evidence? Lack of independent witnesses? Conflicting testimony, a bit of a 'he said, she said' situation? Stupid jury? Who knows?
    Fact is, man was charged with assault and the CPS saw fit to prosecute him.

    If someone has a go at you and gives you a dig in the head, it's not then ok to pick up a knife off a nearby table and stab them in the chest.

    In the same way if one lone empty handed guy has a go and is outnumbered 4 to 1 it's not ok for one of the 4 to smash a bottle over his head.

    What about if he went down and the four started kicking the ****e out of him, I suppose that would still be self-defence in your eyes? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #513
    DubVelo
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    extracheese wrote: »
    Yes, you are correct in saying that most of these things are technically criminal and there are fines and sanctions for such behaviour. I do not like the Schadenfreude mentality displayed by people. I do think much of the Schadenfreude is a reflection of people's own personal struggles and frustrations. How many people out there are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, pay the bills, find a job, keep their own children on the straight and narrow? Living in housing estates where this is a common occurrence? It does not excuse the Schadenfreude, simply rejoicing in this man's death does not solve any problems. Schaden=tragedy, freude=joy, there is no joy to be gained from this tragedy, no one has won or gained anything, and sadly, this man's death will change nothing.

    I think it's a reflection of peoples personal frustrations with criminal and anti-social behaviour all across this country and the failure of our justice system to deal with it.
    We're all sick of it!


  • Options
    #514
    teddyhead
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭teddyhead


    Any of the sunday papers covering this ? It seems the media have gone from total,inaccurate hysteria to quiet as a mouse in about 48 hours. Will be interesting to see what charges are made against the remaining 'terrorist, home invaders'.


  • Options
    #515
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    teddyhead wrote: »
    Any of the sunday papers covering this ? It seems the media have gone from total,inaccurate hysteria to quiet as a mouse in about 48 hours. Will be interesting to see what charges are made against the remaining 'terrorist, home invaders'.
    Breach of the peace, criminal damage, (cars), assault causing harm, there's 3 charges straight away for the 'terrorist home invaders'.


  • Options
    #516
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Breach of the peace, criminal damage, (cars), assault causing harm, there's 3 charges straight away for the 'terrorist home invaders'.
    Are they actual charges brought or more speculation?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Are they actual charges brought or more speculation?
    Considering that the 3 were released without charge with a file sent to the DPP, they are speculation. However the 3 lads could well expect to have those charges brought against them.

    Calling them 'terrorist home invaders' on the other hand............


  • Options
    #518
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Considering that the 3 were released without charge with a file sent to the DPP, they are speculation. However the 3 lads could well expect to have those charges brought against them.

    Calling them 'terrorist home invaders' on the other hand............
    "Could" then. So nobody knows really.


  • Options
    #519
    extracheese
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭extracheese


    DubVelo wrote: »
    I think it's a reflection of peoples personal frustrations with criminal and anti-social behaviour all across this country and the failure of our justice system to deal with it.
    We're all sick of it!

    Everyone is sick of our apathetic justice system and its inability and unwillingness to deal with petty crime. You need only read the local papers to see how many people are getting a little slap on the wrist by our courts because of 'extenuating circumstances'. Our justice system does not believe in people being held responsible for their actions.


  • Options
    #520
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    DubVelo wrote: »
    Really. I don't know why that person in a totally different case in a totally different country got off. Lack of evidence? Lack of independent witnesses? Conflicting testimony, a bit of a 'he said, she said' situation? Stupid jury? Who knows?
    It's common law jurisdiction. The same principle of a right to self-defense applies. Anyone who reads the short article ought to know.
    Man accused of throwing bottle cleared of assault

    Last updated at 09:23, Thursday, 17 April 2014

    A Whitehaven man accused of assault has been found not guilty.

    Kane Johnson, a 20-year-old roofer from Meadow Road, had been accused of throwing a bottle and cutting the face of Stefan Brown from Copeland Avenue.
    He claimed he had acted in self defence.


    The jury reached its not guilty verdict following a two day trial at Carlisle Crown Court.
    DubVelo wrote: »
    Fact is, man was charged with assault and the CPS saw fit to prosecute him.
    And the more important fact is that the accused had his day in court in front of a jury of his peers who found him not guilty. Justice prevailed.
    DubVelo wrote: »
    If someone has a go at you and gives you a dig in the head, it's not then ok to pick up a knife off a nearby table and stab them in the chest.
    Not true. Depending on the details a jury could find that I was defending myself from an aggressor and used force proportional to the threat I was facing.
    DubVelo wrote: »
    In the same way if one lone empty handed guy has a go and is outnumbered 4 to 1 it's not ok for one of the 4 to smash a bottle over his head.
    It can be. Though it's not self defense any longer if they continue to beat him after he has been incapacitated.
    DubVelo wrote: »
    What about if he went down and the four started kicking the ****e out of him, I suppose that would still be self-defence in your eyes? :rolleyes:
    Nope.


  • Options
    #521
    teddyhead
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭teddyhead


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Considering that the 3 were released without charge with a file sent to the DPP, they are speculation. However the 3 lads could well expect to have those charges brought against them.

    Calling them 'terrorist home invaders' on the other hand............

    Indeed. You'll have to take that up with the media. The tone of reporting early on , indicated something far more sinister than rowdy youths.Many posts here indicate that people believed a 'home invasion' had taken place.Which given early coverage, is understandable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    teddyhead
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭teddyhead


    extracheese wrote: »
    Everyone is sick of our apathetic justice system and its inability and unwillingness to deal with petty crime. You need only read the local papers to see how many people are getting a little slap on the wrist by our courts because of 'extenuating circumstances'. Our justice system does not believe in people being held responsible for their actions.

    Amazing , given the criminality thats going on, that more fleeing criminals are not falling into streams and dying of head injuries. I guess this lad was just really unlucky in that regard. What are the odds? Being chased by god knows how many police and a very irate and angry homeowner, yet he comes a cropper , on his own , behind a wall , in a stream.


  • Options
    #523
    DubVelo
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    extracheese wrote: »
    Everyone is sick of our apathetic justice system and its inability and unwillingness to deal with petty crime. You need only read the local papers to see how many people are getting a little slap on the wrist by our courts because of 'extenuating circumstances'. Our justice system does not believe in people being held responsible for their actions.

    Oh yeah, it makes my blood boil that - 'extenuating circumstances'.
    'The accused has suffered two recent bereavements in the family.'

    I'd suffered two recent bereavements in my family when my house was broken into! So ****ing what!? What possible relevance does poor little Darr'un or Wayun having a little bit of a hard time lately have to do with breaking into a ****ing house!?

    :mad::mad::mad:


  • Options
    #524
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    teddyhead wrote: »
    Indeed. You'll have to take that up with the media. The tone of reporting early on , indicated something far more sinister than rowdy youths.Many posts here indicate that people believed a 'home invasion' had taken place.Which given early coverage, is understandable.
    I don't have to take it up with anyone. You are the one who said it. In fact, I quoted you saying it.
    teddyhead wrote: »
    Amazing , given the criminality thats going on, that more fleeing criminals are not falling into streams and dying of head injuries. I guess this lad was just really unlucky in that regard. What are the odds? Being chased by god knows how many police and a very irate and angry homeowner, yet he comes a cropper , on his own , behind a wall , in a stream.
    You are aware it's not the done thing to run away from gardai? He could have stopped. The 'irate and angry homeowner' was at that stage incapacitated, having had the back of his head burst open.


  • Options
    #525
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,911 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    extracheese wrote: »
    It does not excuse the Schadenfreude, simply rejoicing in this man's death does not solve any problems. Schaden=tragedy, freude=joy, there is no joy to be gained from this tragedy, no one has won or gained anything, and sadly, this man's death will change nothing.

    I don't think many engaging in "schadenfrude". "Schaden" means harmful BTW.

    But, I do think that people have an understandable lack of care for this guys fate and actually see it a fate stepping in, in this case.

    You're correct in your other post, HE chose his actions that night and HIS actions led to HIS death.

    That's why a lot of people are, quite rightly, not considering this too tragic.


  • Options
    #526
    extracheese
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭extracheese


    teddyhead wrote: »
    Amazing , given the criminality thats going on, that more fleeing criminals are not falling into streams and dying of head injuries. I guess this lad was just really unlucky in that regard. What are the odds? Being chased by god knows how many police and a very irate and angry homeowner, yet he comes a cropper , on his own , behind a wall , in a stream.

    The young man chose to run from the gards, he chose to be present when the bottles were being smashed, he chose to scale a 7 foot fence and jump over it in the dark not knowing what was on the other side. He chose to make these decisions, the result of these decisions resulted in his death. If he was being chased by irate homeowners and gards, it was probably because of his and his friends actions. No one made these lads act the way they did, they all made the choice to behave in this manner.


  • Options
    #527
    teddyhead
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭teddyhead


    Tony EH wrote: »
    You're correct in your other post, HE chose his actions that night and HIS actions led to HIS death.

    That's why a lot of people are, quite rightly, not considering this too tragic.

    What are your sources on that ? Have the other youths made statements ?
    You seem to be taking a lot of speculation as fact.
    It is possible to get caught up in situations beyond your control. I once walked home from a pub with an aquaintance,not a friend , only to end up being assaulted by a passerby he insulted. Wrong place , wrong time kind of thing. I may have been foolish to trust the guy but I dont think me dying would have been 'my fault' entirely.


  • Options
    #528
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,911 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    He chose to run from Det Lacey. He chose to leap over a fence in pitch darkness.

    Regardless of whatever else he may or may not have been involved in.


  • Options
    #529
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    extracheese wrote: »
    The young man chose to run from the gards, he chose to be present when the bottles were being smashed, he chose to scale a 7 foot fence and jump over it in the dark not knowing what was on the other side. He chose to make these decisions, the result of these decisions resulted in his death. If he was being chased by irate homeowners and gards, it was probably because of his and his friends actions. No one made these lads act the way they did, they all made the choice to behave in this manner.
    How do you know all this is true? Beyond "read it in the Mirror" or "me mate told me his uncle's barber heard it off his dogwalker".


  • Options
    #530
    DubVelo
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's common law jurisdiction. The same principle of a right to self-defense applies. Anyone who reads the short article ought to know.

    All your reference proves is a jury felt they had insufficient evidence to convict in a random case in the UK. It's 'he said, she said', a jury has no way of knowing who's telling the truth. It doesn't vindicate bottling someone as a valid way to respond to a threat.
    There is a right to self-defence, that right does not extend to battering someone with a weapon any time you feel like it.

    http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-man-claims-he-threw-vodka-bottle-to-warn-off-attacker-1.1130062
    Earlier the jury heard Mrs Brown, in her evidence, say that Johnson had come down her pathway demanding to see someone who did not live at the address.

    She said they had asked him repeatedly to leave and added: “They knew for a fact he didn’t live there. I said to John, ‘Tell them to move’. Kane Johnson demanded a phone number for him which we didn’t have.”

    She said the argument escalated and she called for her husband who was upstairs at the time.

    She said she was pushed to the ground and the next thing she knew she saw her husband on the ground next to her covered in blood although she admitted that she did not see the bottle being thrown.


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And the more important fact is that the accused had his day in court in front of a jury of his peers who found him not guilty. Justice prevailed.

    All that means is he had his day in court, doesn't mean it was right.

    Oh and by the way, your innocent man who bottled somebody in 'self defence' has previous for assault: http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/teens-admit-assault-1.992613?referrerPath=news
    TWO 19-year-olds from Whitehaven have each been made the subject of a community order after they admitted assaulting an Egremont man.

    Kane Johnson, of Meadow Road, and Ryan Murdock, of Kinniside Avenue, were also ordered by West Cumbria magistrates to pay compensation to Ross Toomey (£100 from Johnson; £50 from Murdock).

    Both are also required to spend 36 hours at an attendance centre and Johnson must observe a 12-week 7pm-7am curfew.

    £85 costs were imposed on Johnson and £300 costs on Murdock.


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Not true. Depending on the details a jury could find that I was defending myself from an aggressor and used force proportional to the threat I was facing.

    You are kind of making my point for me, you can defend yourself but the response must be reasonable and proportional. If someone gives you a dig and you pick up a knife and stab them, that's not reasonable or proportional. It's pretty much the definition of not those things.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It can be. Though it's not self defense any longer if they continue to beat him after he has been incapacitated.

    The same with the outnumbered empty handed man and the bottle. It's not in any way reasonable or proportional.


  • Options
    #531
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    teddyhead wrote: »
    Indeed. You'll have to take that up with the media. The tone of reporting early on , indicated something far more sinister than rowdy youths.Many posts here indicate that people believed a 'home invasion' had taken place.Which given early coverage, is understandable.

    Yes it appears now it was a previous night when someone had broken into a home using a hatchet and these lads just happened to know the guy and be near the senior Gardas house where they damaged a number of cars accidentally threw a bottle at his house and then accidentally hit him over the head with another one resulting in him being brought to hospital.

    Seriously, it's people like you downplaying burglary and making excuses for thugs that are responsible for the leniency shown in courts to burglars and anti social mobs. Having said that, I bet you'd be the first one to complain if they were outside your home and you didn't get immediate service from the Gardaí.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    teddyhead
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭teddyhead


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Yes it appears now it was a previous night when someone had broken into a home using a hatchet and these lads just happened to know the guy and be near the senior Gardas house where they damaged a number of cars accidentally threw a bottle at his house and then accidentally hit him over the head with another one resulting in him being brought to hospital.

    Seriously, it's people like you downplaying burglary and making excuses for thugs that are responsible for the leniency shown in courts to burglars and anti social mobs. Having said that, I bet you'd be the first one to complain if they were outside your home and you didn't get immediate service from the Gardaí.

    Im primarily concerned with 'the facts' which are largely unknown at this point. The youths behaviour seems out of order for sure but one of them ended up dead and the public needs to find out why. There was no burglary by the way. I would indeed certainly be the first one to complain if a relative died in mysterious circumstances and people like yourself,the media and many politicians tried to downplay that fact.


  • Options
    #533
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    teddyhead wrote: »
    Im primarily concerned with 'the facts' which are largely unknown at this point. The youths behaviour seems out of order for sure but one of them ended up dead and the public needs to find out why. There was no burglary by the way. I would indeed certainly be the first one to complain if a relative died in mysterious circumstances and people like yourself,the media and many politicians tried to downplay that fact.

    The facts are known. They are largely unproven. There is no mystery. And I'm not trying to downplay his death nor do I take any joy in it. I simply don't care about it. If it later turns out that this lad wasn't a cancer on society I will likely change this view. I have no problem with a thorough investigation. Hopefully it will result in further charges against his friends who left him behind.


  • Options
    #534
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Tony EH wrote: »
    He chose to run from Det Lacey. He chose to leap over a fence in pitch darkness.

    Regardless of whatever else he may or may not have been involved in.
    In fairness, even if I was completely innocent I'd considering running from the Dungarvan police after another young man died in police custody less than a year ago.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/watchdog-probes-death-in-garda-cell-29461538.html


  • Options
    #535
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    extracheese wrote: »
    From what I have read, this was a tragic accident caused by a series of bad choices made by this young man. A lot of people are making excuses for his behaviour while others seem to be condoning his death. Perhaps, this young man has always had people around him that were always quick to make excuses for his behaviour. And as such, never learned that all choices have consequences, whether good, bad or indifferent. I do think that as a society we need to teach young people that their decisions and choices have consequences and that they themselves need to take responsibility for those choices. People need to stop mollycoddling young people and making excuses for their behaviour. The man was 18, in the eyes of the law old enough to be accountable for his actions. And unless he was living under a rock for the past 18 years, knows what is and what isn't appropriate.

    He chose to scale a seven foot fence and jump over it in the middle of the night without knowing what was on the other




    side, he chose to run away from the Gardaí, he chose to go out with his friends that night, and he chose to remain with




    his friends when the bottles were thrown. I can't imagine that anyone on God's green earth made him do these things,


    he, himself made these decisions. His decisions caused his death.

    Also, there are literally thousands of eighteen year olds in this country. On that night, how many other eighteen year olds were out causing trouble? Of the thousands of eighteen year olds, how many of them would actually CHOOSE to engage in this sort of behaviour? If I were to hazard a guess, probably less then 2%. Most eighteen year olds go out drinking, they will on occasion have far too much to drink, they may be a bit too loud walking home from the pub or wherever, they may vomit or urinate in an inappropriate place, they may get into an argument, they may leave rubbish
    lying on the ground, they may....none of these behaviours are very appropriate but they are not criminal. The vast
    majority of young people would not hit a garda over the head with a bottle, nor do they have friends that would. Please
    stop making excuses for the 2% that choose to engage in criminal behaviour.

    Excellent post. Agree with every word.


  • Options
    #536
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    The facts are known. They are largely unproven.
    Can you explain how facts can be "known" if they are unproven?
    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    There is no mystery. And I'm not trying to downplay his death nor do I take any joy in it. I simply don't care about it. If it later turns out that this lad wasn't a cancer on society I will likely change this view.
    So guilty until proven innocent then. I hope you aren't a policeman with a mentality like that.
    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I have no problem with a thorough investigation. Hopefully it will result in further charges against his friends who left him behind.
    ... and your reason you stating as fact that anyone was with him when he fell???


  • Options
    #537
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    teddyhead wrote: »
    There was no burglary by the way.
    I think it is in reference to this. http://www.thejournal.ie/gardai-hatchet-robbery-dungarvan-1462443-May2014/

    Quite how it can be known from the publically available information that there is a connection between the two events I am not sure. What we do know is that the deceased student had nothing to do with the burglary.


  • Options
    #538
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    o
    DubVelo wrote: »
    All your reference proves is a jury felt they had insufficient evidence to convict in a random case in the UK. It's 'he said, she said', a jury has no way of knowing who's telling the truth. It doesn't vindicate bottling someone as a valid way to respond to a threat.
    There is a right to self-defence, that right does not extend to battering someone with a weapon any time you feel like it. .

    Yes, I know. The gentleman was cleared of all charges. This is what "not guilty means". He was judged to be not guilty of assault because he was defending himself. If you have a problem with trial by jury that is a side issue.
    DubVelo wrote: »
    You are kind of making my point for me, you can defend yourself but the response must be reasonable and proportional. If someone gives you a dig and you pick up a knife and stab them, that's not reasonable or proportional. It's pretty much the definition of not those things.

    The same with the outnumbered empty handed man and the bottle. It's not in any way reasonable or proportional.
    You are wrong. It can be. It depends on the context. I've just proven this to you by way of example.


  • Options
    #539
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Can you explain how facts can be "known" if they are unproven?
    So guilty until proven innocent then. I hope you aren't a policeman with a mentality like that.
    ... and your reason you stating as fact that anyone was with him when he fell???
    We'll have a fair trial followed by a good hanging, as the joke used to go.


  • Options
    #540
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I think it is in reference to this. http://www.thejournal.ie/gardai-hatchet-robbery-dungarvan-1462443-May2014/

    Quite how it can be known from the publically available information that there is a connection between the two events I am not sure. What we do know is that the deceased student had nothing to do with the burglary.

    Did you decide that somehow describing him as a "student" (of what?drinking cans and smoking weed?) Somehow puts him in a better light? If he is as you seem to feel yet another blameless innocent victim of the brutal corrupt gardai, then why would you feel the need to "spin" his image in this way?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I have no problem with a thorough investigation. Hopefully it will result in further charges against his friends who left him behind.
    So you are neutral except you'd like to see more charges even though you really have no idea at all what really happened...
    Reeeight.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement