The hazards of being a burglar

Smondie

The scourge of burglaries and thieving feckers has plauged the country for long enough. A medal should be given to the lad who shot this thief and a job in the garda force. The poor little thief is bringing a civil case against the man. Thieves should not be allowed to profit from thier crimes by taking civil cases against people they have robbed.



http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/people-around-here-are-terrified-of-being-burgled-farmer-83-defends-son-who-shot-burglar-after-he-ransacked-home-34950044.html


Fahey, who has more than 60 convictions for theft, burglary and car theft, is now suing Graham Lowndes in a civil case for his injury caused by 17 shotgun pellets.



Good people of AH, should it be allowed to bring civil cases against your victims and profit for a second time for your crime? Who pays the costs associated with these court cases? Free legal aid should be stopped after crime number one. You only get one chance, you better use it.


Tldr: boo hoo little thief

mansize

You don't get Legal Aid in a civil case AFAIK

Smondie

mansize wrote: »

You don't get Legal Aid in a civil case AFAIK

Ok I didn't know that. Who pays for the court's time?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Flint Fredstone

Should have shot him in his rat featured face.

mansize

Smondie wrote: »

Ok I didn't know that. Who pays for the court's time?

No doubt the solicitor would take it up on a No Win No Fee basis

He was out of the property and chased- the farmer's son will get done

Smondie

I just checked citzend advice website regarding costs. The best outcome will be imprisonment (was he semntenced to prison for the burglary?) and thievey mcthiefface will be required to pay all costs. How much are prison wages?


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/civil_law/cost_of_the_case.html


However, you may be obliged to pay all the costs and fees of your own legal team and that of the other party in the following situations:

if you lose your case
agree to accept an amount less than your full claim
a court fails to award you your costs or a proportion of them
the court awards costs against you

Smondie

mansize wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Ok I didn't know that. Who pays for the court's time?

No doubt the solicitor would take it up on a No Win No Fee basis

He was out of the property and chased- the farmer's son will get done

He was still on thier property. Not in the house but on thier property none the less.

TSMGUY

Reminiscent of that line in "Liar Liar" when Betty White says some lawyer got his burglar client compensation for tripping on a ladder.

Patently silly case. Burglars make people feel unsafe in their own homes and they should expect to face the full wrath of homeowners if they show up in someone's property.

Wibbs

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This. Burglary should be a crime whose consequences can be grim and simply too risky to be worth committing.

The chap from the link;
"The technology exists for number plate recognition cameras to be installed around rural Ireland so that the comings and goings of criminal gangs can be recorded," he said.

Good point. I mean it seems you can't move on country roads for speed vans, private and Garda, roadblocks for tax etc are largely a thing of the past, so why not aim it at tackling roving scum? Though to be fair to the Guards there has been a drop in the figures for the crime. They were given the resources and they followed through. This is far more a judiciary and government issue, like much of our crime issues.

dodzy

mansize wrote: »

No doubt the solicitor would take it up on a No Win No Fee basis

He was out of the property and chased- the farmer's son will get done

Jesus, that Fahey lad.....this is what a scrote looks like.

Smondie

Wibbs wrote: »

This. Burglary should be a crime whose consequences can be grim and simply too risky to be worth committing.

The chap from the link;
"The technology exists for number plate recognition cameras to be installed around rural Ireland so that the comings and goings of criminal gangs can be recorded," he said.

Good point. I mean it seems you can't move on country roads for speed vans, private and Garda, roadblocks for tax etc are largely a thing of the past, so why not aim it at tackling roving scum? Though to be fair to the Guards there has been a drop in the figures for the crime. They were given the resources and they followed through. This is far more a judiciary and government issue, like much of our crime issues.

I was reading in one of the papers how a community set up thier own cameras and crime has fallen dramatically. They are in breech of planning permission and various other red tape issues, but decided to do it anyway. Fair play to them. I would be asking "why so many red tape issues, if it's what the community wants? "

Littlehorny

The term outlaw should be brought back into law, in other words if you are committing a crime you are operating out of the law so have no legal right to any protection what so ever.

Smondie

Smondie wrote: »

Fahey, who has more than 60 convictions for theft, burglary and car theft, is now suing Graham Lowndes in a civil case for his injury caused by 17 shotgun pellets.

Good people of AH, should it be allowed to bring civil cases against your victims and profit for a second time for your crime? Who pays the costs associated with these court cases? Free legal aid should be stopped after crime number one. You only get one chance, you better use it.

The stuff about legal aid has no relevance whatsoever.

Do you think someone with previous should be prevented from taking civil claims? Or that only people with money can bring claims? Or that we would have a case before a case to decide on the merits of the claimant? What exactly are you proposing?

I hope he doesn't win, but he has every right to make a claim.

TSMGUY

Deleted User wrote: »

The stuff about legal aid has no relevance whatsoever.

Do you think someone with previous should be prevented from taking civil claims? Or that only people with money can bring claims? Or that we would have a case before a case to decide on the merits of the claimant? What exactly are you proposing?

I hope he doesn't win, but he has every right to make a claim.

No, he doesn't. It's like punching someone and suing them because you broke your knuckle.

Smondie

Deleted User wrote: »

....

I hope he doesn't win, but he has every right to make a claim.

He shouldn't have any right to make a claim against his victim.

This right should be removed.

El_Duderino 09

Patww79 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I have sympathy for the son but the law that you can't chase someone down and shoot them, is a good law in general.

Wibbs wrote:

The chap from the link; "The technology exists for number plate recognition cameras to be installed around rural Ireland so that the comings and goings of criminal gangs can be recorded," he said.

Good point. I mean it seems you can't move on country roads for speed vans, private and Garda, roadblocks for tax etc are largely a thing of the past, so why not aim it at tackling roving scum?

Can you imagine the uproar of 'big brother' and 'nanny state's if this was introduced? I think it's 21st century policing though.

El_Duderino 09

Littlehorny wrote:

The term outlaw should be brought back into law, in other words if you are committing a crime you are operating out of the law so have no legal right to any protection what so ever.

I'm not willing to give up that much civilisation.

Your Face

60 convictions for theft.
Robbed two houses the day of the shooting.
Got 6 years with 4 suspended.
Meanwhile the farmers son has 4 years living with a criminal case.

I really don't get it.

Smondie

He's a car thief too. If he crashed a car after robbing it and got injured, can he sue the owner of the car?

LeBash

Wibbs wrote: »

This. Burglary should be a crime whose consequences can be grim and simply too risky to be worth committing.

The chap from the link;
"The technology exists for number plate recognition cameras to be installed around rural Ireland so that the comings and goings of criminal gangs can be recorded," he said.

Good point. I mean it seems you can't move on country roads for speed vans, private and Garda, roadblocks for tax etc are largely a thing of the past, so why not aim it at tackling roving scum? Though to be fair to the Guards there has been a drop in the figures for the crime. They were given the resources and they followed through. This is far more a judiciary and government issue, like much of our crime issues.

Because all it proves is that the person was in the area. Not that they committed the crime. If someone can win a case for hurting themselves during a burglary, what makes you think the law will assume a 200 time convicted burglar in the area of a crime committed it.

The law is set up to protect scumbags. Not for justice. To be honest, to end up in jail at all must be really bad luck.

Smondie

Has the burglar got a written risk analysis and health and safety policy?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

mansize wrote: »

No doubt the solicitor would take it up on a No Win No Fee basis

He was out of the property and chased- the farmer's son will get done

He was still on the property. He was in the farmers field.

Smondie

Smondie wrote: »

He's a car thief too. If he crashed a car after robbing it and got injured, can he sue the owner of the car?

Obviously not.

Because the injuries were caused by his driving.

And before you ask another silly one, no, he can't sue himself either.

Smondie

Deleted User wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

He's a car thief too. If he crashed a car after robbing it and got injured, can he sue the owner of the car?

Obviously not.

Because the injuries were caused by his driving.

And before you ask another silly one, no, he can't sue himself either.

But if there was a fault with the brakes or some such?


The injuries of this burglar where caused by his burglarying

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously not.

Because the injuries were caused by his driving.

And before you ask another silly one, no, he can't sue himself either.

And his injuries were caused by breaking into a 79 year olds property.
If he hadn't ransacked someone's home he wouldn't have been shot.

Smondie

Smondie wrote: »

But if there was a fault with the brakes or some such?

Why would that make the owner responsible. I don't know how to fix my brakes.

You're not really sure about this area, are you? Nothing wrong with that, of course.

You skipped my question, what would you do? Stop people with previous suing? Have pre case assessments, like cases before cases?

Pac1Man

If only we had someone with some legal know-how to give some technical insight.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And his injuries were caused by breaking into a 79 year olds property.
If he hadn't ransacked someone's home he wouldn't have been shot.

The defendant is perfectly entitled to defend the case and point that out.

Smondie

Deleted User wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

But if there was a fault with the brakes or some such?

Why would that make the owner responsible. I don't know how to fix my brakes.

You're not really sure about this area, are you? Nothing wrong with that, of course.

You skipped my question, what would you do? Stop people with previous suing? Have pre case assessments, like cases before cases?

I thought I had answered your question Connor.


If you are a burglar I would remove the right to sue your victim.

Vic_08

Smondie wrote: »

I just checked citzend advice website regarding costs. The best outcome will be imprisonment (was he semntenced to prison for the burglary?) and thievey mcthiefface will be required to pay all costs. How much are prison wages?

If you read the article properly you would know the answers.

Scummer pled guilty of burglary, got convicted, 6 years, 4 suspended.

The farmer was found guilty of possessing a shotgun without a certificate, got probation act. Charge of reckless discharge of shotgun was dropped. No prison or fine for him, seems fair. If he had his shotgun cert in order no conviction at all.

Civil cases are for damages, not criminal so no prison or convictions or fines.

If the judge finds in favour of plaintiff he can award damages to be paid by defendant as well as court costs, if he finds for defendant he can award costs against plaintiff but it is pretty certain that plaintiff will not be paying a penny.

IMO even if the judgement is against the farmer there should be no payout as the thief is obviously a worthless leech on society. What value should be placed on him;
Inability to work? Thieving or dole? I'm sure he'll manage to resume the former and the latter is a cert for the rest of his life anyway.
Medical expenses? Paid by the state either way.
Pain and suffering? He shoots painkilling poison into his veins voluntarily.

Award: here's a fiver, now fuk off.

This is the Irish judiciary we're talking about so who knows what outcome there will be. If I was in the farmer's shoes I wouldn't be confident, I'd have offloaded all my assets and made myself judgement proof before the trial started. I hope for his sake the farm is in the father's name.

Smondie

Smondie wrote: »

I thought I had answered your question Connor.

If you are a burglar I would remove the right to sue your victim.

So if a kid stealing apples is blasted away by some farmer, his family would have no right to seek recompense?

I think disallowing people access to the Courts is a bad idea.

Smondie

Vic_08 wrote: »

If you read the article properly you would know the answers.

.

If the article doesn't mention prision wage rates which was one of my questions.


How about his woman companion,how long did she get?

Smondie

Deleted User wrote: »

So if a kid stealing apples is blasted away by some farmer, his family would have no right to seek recompense?

I think disallowing people access to the Courts is a bad idea.

Yes, but we all know this wasn't a kid stealing Apple's.

The legal profession and possibly the thief are the only beneficiaries here. The legal profession have a vested interest in allowing criminals carry in with this stuff. Repeat customers.

Lovely Bloke

Deleted User wrote: »

So if a kid stealing apples is blasted away by some farmer, his family would have no right to seek recompense?

I think disallowing people access to the Courts is a bad idea.

"people"

Sam Kade

We really need a scumbag cull.

OhHiMark

Smondie wrote: »

Yes, but we all know this wasn't a kid stealing Apple's.

The legal profession and possibly the thief are the only beneficiaries here. The legal profession have avert interest in allowing criminals carry in with this stuff. Repeat customers.

So what's the threshold of losing your right to a court case? It's clearly above apples but below entering the house. What's the exact point where you lose your rights?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

The defendant should counter sue for damages too. The value of the stolen property, the trauma caused to him walking onto the farm and realising there was a raid, and the physcological trauma of fearing for his life when he didn't know if the raider was unarmed, I'm sure himself and his father are suffering from PTSD. The father should initiate a case too.

Smondie

OhHiMark wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Yes, but we all know this wasn't a kid stealing Apple's.

The legal profession and possibly the thief are the only beneficiaries here. The legal profession have avert interest in allowing criminals carry in with this stuff. Repeat customers.

So what's the threshold of losing your right to a court case? It's clearly above apples but below entering the house. What's the exact point where you lose your rights?

No, it's not above Apple's. Parents need to be more aware and supervise thier children.

My "yes" was in acknowledgement that anyone stealing anything is fair game. It's a slippery slope to a life of crime.

bmwguy

One person's actions set this in motion, the burglars. I will not even humanize him by using his name, he is just a burglar.

I don't have a gun but I have things I could use as weapons and I would not hesitate to use them in defence of my property and family. No sympathy for the burglar whatsoever and I hope common sense prevails.

mansize

LexieOnRale wrote: »

He was still on the property. He was in the farmers field.

That wasn't where the crime was committed, so he didnt intervene during the crime.

I'm not saying its right, Im just saying what will happen, the thief will win the civil case.

mansize

TSMGUY wrote: »

No, he doesn't. It's like punching someone and suing them because you broke your knuckle.

That would be like him suing them for injuries sustained entering the building, cut on glass etc...

Chasing a guy through a field is slightly different.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

mansize wrote: »

That wasn't where the crime was committed, so he didnt intervene during the crime.

I'm not saying its right, Im just saying what will happen, the thief will win the civil case.

Does it matter? The burglar was disturbed, was blocked in on the property, so took off through the fields. He was trespassing on farm land. If there was a bull in the field, or a hole in the ground he tripped and fell into, I'm sure he'd have been sueing for damages too.

mansize

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Does it matter? The burglar was disturbed, was blocked in on the property, so took off through the fields. He was trespassing on farm land. If there was a bull in the field, or a hole in the ground he tripped and fell into, I'm sure he'd have been sueing for damages too.

Well yes, clearly in law it does matter.

If he was off his land completely, would you allow the son the right to shoot???

Chuchote

Sam Kade wrote: »

We really need a scumbag cull.

Not working out so well in the Philippines.

mansize

I cant see the numberplate thing being much use either, a huge cost to run and ineffective if they steal a car then commit the robbery.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Nope.

But I own a farm and I certainly wouldn't be happy knowing drug addicts are protected by law if they want to chill out on my land after ransacking my property.

mansize

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Nope.

But I own a farm and I certainly wouldn't be happy knowing drug addicts are protected by law if they want to chill out on my land after ransacking my property.

Dont injure them, unless you can plead self defence

If they were still on your land couldnt the gardai arrest them?

mansize

Chuchote wrote: »

Not working out so well in the Philippines.

Doesn't matter if its ineffective, as long as it makes people feel better... or something...

hairyslug

A very wise man once said we should "stomp on their heads"

Smondie

Yes the Gardai are well known for thier rapid respond rates.