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…1516171921

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    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?
    Well we know for a fact he was a student. Calling him a terrorist, criminal or scumbag based on wishful thinking is conjecture at this stage.


  • Options
    #543
    Shady Tady
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Shady Tady


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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

    Have you proof that something illegal was done to cause his death?


  • Options
    #544
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    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?
    The fact that you think calling a student a "student" is somehow spin says more about you than it does anything else.


  • Options
    #545
    Shady Tady
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Shady Tady


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Well we know for a fact he was a student. Calling him a terrorist, criminal or scumbag based on wishful thinking is conjecture at this stage.

    "There is no one so blind as those who do not wish to see"


  • Options
    #546
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Shady Tady wrote: »
    "There is no one so blind as those who do not wish to see"
    Random proverb... Is this thought for the day or what?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    Shady Tady
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Shady Tady


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Random proverb... Is this thought for the day or what?

    Relevant proverb mainly aimed at fools


  • Options
    #548
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Can you explain how facts can be "known" if they are unproven?

    Because not everything can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Doesn't make it untrue. I'm satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the overwhelming anecdotal and reported evidence is representative of the facts.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So guilty until proven innocent then. I hope you aren't a policeman with a mentality like that.

    Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal law concept. We are not in a criminal court. People can indeed be guilty of a crime even if they are not proven to be so in a court of law. Or do you think nobody who committed a crime ever got off?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... and your reason you stating as fact that anyone was with him when he fell???

    I didn't. I said they left him behind. Most likely before he fell. If they hadn't they could have helped him.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not neutral. I dislike scumbags. I'm satisfied I know enough to justify my opinion.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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

    You should let his family know it was suspicious. They're getting involved in suicide prevention events.

    "Jessie Kirby and her brother Edgar (playing the role of Donnie) and sister, Rebecca (assistant director), who have had two cousins take their own lives in the last year, one just this morning (at time of writing) in the local gardai station. His name was Nathan Kirby, and he was 21 years old."

    http://eile.ie/2013/08/01/youth-suicide-irelands-silent-serial-killer/


  • Options
    #549
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Ah, I see. So on balance of probability from anecdotal and hearsay evidence you have come to the steadfast conclusion that everybody was guilty of whatever.
    Why wait for the court case.


  • Options
    #550
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Ah, I see. So on balance of probability from anecdotal and hearsay evidence you have come to the steadfast conclusion that everybody was guilty of whatever.
    Why wait for the court case.

    For criminal charges to be brought of course. I would think that would be obvious. Do you only believe things that are found to be true in court? That must be an awfully uncertain life you lead. Yet somehow you believe anything which suits that chip on your shoulder no matter where you read it. Odd that.


  • Options
    #551
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    For criminal charges to be brought of course. I would think that would be obvious. Do you only believe things that are found to be true in court? That must be an awfully uncertain life you lead. Yet somehow you believe anything which suits that chip on your shoulder no matter where you read it. Odd that.
    Ah yes, that chip on the shoulder (or was it a conspiracy?) that anyone who dares to question AGS about anything must have. So, why do YOU have a chip on your shoulder about the judiciary and anyone with the cheek to contradict you? Lose da hattitude!
    And sorry, we were talking about criminal cases, where the proof needs to be a little bit better than "I hate young people" or "the Mirror said something that matches my prejudices".
    You are saying you don't care whether things are proven in court or not. Go on, tell us, are you AGS or not? Edit:posting history says most likely yes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    DubVelo
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.


    Neither of us have any evidence as to why the gentleman with the previous conviction for assault was cleared on this occasion.
    You're merely making an assumption that the jury bought his shaky defence, there could be any number of reasons why the prosecution failed to secure a conviction.

    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You are wrong. It can be. It depends on the context. I've just proven this to you by way of example.


    I gave two hypothetical situations, there was no context.
    So someone gives you a dig, it's ok to stab them, yeah?


  • Options
    #553
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Ah yes, that chip on the shoulder (or was it a conspiracy?) that anyone who dares to question AGS about anything must have. So, why do YOU have a chip on your shoulder about the judiciary and anyone with the cheek to contradict you? Loss da hattitude!
    And sorry, we were talking about criminal cases, where the proof needs to be a little bit better than "I hate young people" or "the Mirror said something that matches my prejudices".
    You are saying you don't care whether things are proven in court or not. Go on, tell us, are you AGS or not?

    I care if they are proven in court because only then can someone be punished for their crime. Outside of that I make my own decision on whether I think someone did something or not. It's called an opinion and I make it based on what I believe the truth is.

    And the chip I describe is the one that makes you dredge up the most remote evidence to justify your campaign to smear all Gardaí as corrupt, useless and lazy yet also makes you ignore all the more pertinent evidence shown to the contrary.


  • Options
    #554
    Mike747
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 383 ✭✭Mike747


    Only came across this story now. Always nice to see poetic justice. Reminds me of the Manchester scumbag who died in Cork.


  • Options
    #555
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The fact that you think calling a student a "student" is somehow spin says more about you than it does anything else.

    That's not an answer brown bomber. You desperately started reffering to him as a "student" in an effort to compare him to say, my nephew, who is heading down to UCC tomorrow to do his final final year exam after working very hard for three years.
    There is no cedibility in reffering to the late Jamie Ducey as a ""student" anymore then a mafiosa bosses solicitor reffering to hi s client as a "legitimate business man". Its horse****.


  • Options
    #556
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I care if they are proven in court because only then can someone be punished for their crime. Outside of that I make my own decision on whether I think someone did something or not. It's called an opinion and I make it based on what I believe the truth is.

    And the chip I describe is the one that makes you dredge up the most remote evidence to justify your campaign to smear all Gardaí as corrupt, useless and lazy yet also makes you ignore all the more pertinent evidence shown to the contrary.
    Oh, well since you just told us for a fact you only need to go with your gut, or feeling in your bones or itchy ear or whatever for proof then I guess you've got just stacks of evidence this particular allegation up, huh.


  • Options
    #557
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    That's not an answer brown bomber. You desperately started reffering to him as a "student" in an effort to compare him to say, my nephew, who is heading down to UCC tomorrow to do his final final year exam after working very hard for three years.
    There is no cedibility in reffering to the late Jamie Ducey as a ""student" anymore then a mafiosa bosses solicitor reffering to hi s client as a "legitimate business man". Its horse****.
    But a mafiosi boss ISN'T a legitimate businessman whereas this boy most certainly provably WAS a student.
    So your analogy is horse****.


  • Options
    #558
    Shady Tady
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Shady Tady


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But a mafiosi boss ISN'T a legitimate businessman whereas this boy most certainly provably WAS a student.
    So your analogy is horse****.

    Less of that language please or I'll have to start a thread in feedback about my feeling being hurt and why no one did anything about it!


  • Options
    #559
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    The senior garda and his wife were at their home in Dungarvan when they heard the sound of glass breaking around midnight. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/waterford-incident-18-year-olds-body-was-found-near-stream-630696.html

    That was a Thursday night.
    Friday is a schoolday for a "student".

    But he may not have been a "student" as the young mans facebook profile states he is employed at..... Coffee shop at Amsterdam, Netherlands (18 June 2013 to present)


  • Options
    #560
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Oh, well since you just told us for a fact you only need to go with your gut, or feeling in your bones or itchy ear or whatever for proof then I guess you've got just stacks of evidence this particular allegation up, huh.

    That doesn't make sense. Is it supposed to be a question? Are you saying you don;t hold any opinions that have not been proven in a court of law? Because that's just not true.


  • Options
    #561
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    That doesn't make sense. Is it supposed to be a question? Are you saying you don;t hold any opinions that have not been proven in a court of law? Because that's just not true.
    Doesn't make sense to you.
    I have plenty of opinions on things which aren't criminal cases. For those there's a thing call a court of law which decides on guilt.
    In fact, saying somebody is guilty prior to the court case is libel.
    But what would you know about any of that complicated legal stuff, eh?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Doesn't make sense to you.
    I have plenty of opinions on things which aren't criminal cases. For those there's a thing call a court of law which decides on guilt.
    In fact, saying somebody is guilty prior to the court case is libel.
    But what would you know about any of that complicated legal stuff, eh?

    I can tell you that libel no longer exists in Ireland. It's now called defamation. Your legal knowledge is outdated. It's also only defamation if you cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that something is true.


  • Options
    #563
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,492 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Doesn't make sense to you.
    I have plenty of opinions on things which aren't criminal cases. For those there's a thing call a court of law which decides on guilt.
    In fact, saying somebody is guilty prior to the court case is libel.
    But what would you know about any of that complicated legal stuff, eh?

    Would that not be slander?
    Need to get things right in a law thread lads.


  • Options
    #564
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I can tell you that libel no longer exists in Ireland. It's now called defamation. Your legal knowledge is outdated. It's also only defamation if you cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that something is true.
    Well you can't prove jack so I guess that defamation then.
    Thanks Matlock.
    BTW, whatever the article law is called it is still libel. Sorry to burst your bubble there. They mean the same thing.


  • Options
    #565
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Would that not be slander?
    Need to get things right in a law thread lads.
    Traditionally slander is word of mouth and libel is written.
    There's a permanent record of several people here proclaiming guilt so that's libel.
    Which, yes, is the same as defamation for those who think using another word for the same thing makes them sound clever.


  • Options
    #566
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Well you can't prove jack so I guess that defamation then.
    Thanks Matlock.
    BTW, whatever the article law is called it is still libel. Sorry to burst your bubble there. They mean the same thing.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Traditionally slander is word of mouth and libel is written.
    There's a permanent record of several people here proclaiming guilt so that's libel.
    Which, yes, is the same as defamation for those who think using another word for the same thing makes them sound clever.

    You seem to be missing the point. There is no libel or slander anymore. There was legislation brought in called the Defamation Act which replaced both torts with defamation. There happens to be a defence of honest opinion set out in the legislation as well. Once again, you seem to know nothing of what you speak of.

    EDIT: There is also a requirement that a defamatory statement reduces a persons reputation in the eyes of his peers. As this lad appeared to hang out with violent criminals I think I'm safe enough.


  • Options
    #567
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    You seem to be missing the point. There is no libel or slander anymore. There was legislation brought in called the Defamation Act which replaced both torts with defamation. There happens to be a defence of honest opinion set out in the legislation as well. Once again, you seem to know nothing of what you speak of.

    EDIT: There is also a requirement that a defamatory statement reduces a persons reputation in the eyes of his peers. As this lad appeared to hang out with violent criminals I think I'm safe enough.
    Of course there are still libel and slander. These things haven't ceased to exist because they are now covered by a law which calls them defamation. You are still confused by the entire concept of synonyms?
    You cannot have an "honest" opinion as you do not have the facts of this case to hand and you have been told repeatedly you do not.


  • Options
    #568
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Of course there are still libel and slander. These things haven't ceased to exist because they are now covered by a law which calls them defamation. You are still confused by the entire concept of synonyms?

    No don't be getting insulting because you have once again been shown to have no knowledge of the law. Neither slander nor libel exist anymore because they have both been amalgamated into one. In the same way you do not refer to the countries East Germany and West Germany because they are now the country Germany.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You cannot have an "honest" opinion as you do not have the facts of this case to hand and you have been told repeatedly you do not.

    My opinion is based on what I believe to be true, making it an honest opinion. You are free to disagree with my opinion or what I have based it on but that does not change whether it is an honestly held opinion or not.


  • Options
    #569
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    No don't be getting insulting because you have once again been shown to have no knowledge of the law. Neither slander nor libel exist anymore because they have both been amalgamated into one. In the same way you do not refer to the countries East Germany and West Germany because they are now the country Germany.



    My opinion is based on what I believe to be true, making it an honest opinion. You are free to disagree with my opinion or what I have based it on but that does not change whether it is an honestly held opinion or not.
    Slander and libel do not exist? No, they do exist, they are just covered by a law which happens to group them as defamation. Are you really contesting this? Next you'll tell me killing someone unlawfully doesn't exist because that's called murder. Ozzy doesn't exist anymore because he's rejoined Black Sabbath.
    Puh-lease.


  • Options
    #570
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Slander and libel do not exist? No, they do exist, they are just covered by a law which happens to group them as defamation. Are you really contesting this? Next you'll tell me killing someone unlawfully doesn't exist because that's called murder. Ozzy doesn't exist anymore because he's rejoined Black Sabbath.
    Puh-lease.

    No I won't be contesting it because once again you will ignore what you are being told as is usual and reference the ridiculous to support you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    You seem to be missing the point. There is no libel or slander anymore. There was legislation brought in called the Defamation Act which replaced both torts with defamation. There happens to be a defence of honest opinion set out in the legislation as well. Once again, you seem to know nothing of what you speak of.

    EDIT: There is also a requirement that a defamatory statement reduces a persons reputation in the eyes of his peers. As this lad appeared to hang out with violent criminals I think I'm safe enough.
    You are missing a trick. I studied media law once upon a time. You have to able to prove the truth of your accusation. You have already admitted you can't. You'd lose. That is if you weren't defaming a dead person.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement