Media spin on an important Story

AlekSmart

A disturbing story describing the rise of a violent young thug,who's appetite for extreme violence is increasing by the day.

So much forewarning,across the entire education,Garda and Justice spectrum,and yet this individual is facilitated,even encouraged to continue his crusade.

Where will it end...?

http://www.thejournal.ie/limerick-attack-2-3016007-Oct2016/

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/family-wanted-to-return-to-wartorn-middle-east-after-spending-just-13-days-in-irish-city-35113954.html

The fact that his latest victim is a Refugee/Migrant/Foreign is true,however it should NOT be the focus of this story..

Family wanted to return to war-torn Middle East after spending just 13 days in Irish city

Wow...what a story !...Talk about manna from heaven for those requiring confirmation of their belief that "We" are bad people.

On reading through the full account however,we learn that this Individual has a long-list of violent crimes committed against anybody whom crosses his path....not a sign of Racism or Xenophobis in his actions.

Following his arrest in November 2015, the defendant was refused bail at Limerick Children's Court after been charged with the boy's assault, as well as 34 other offences, including 17 counts of criminal damage; nine counts of theft; six counts of burglary; and two counts of stealing cars.

All "minor" offences in the minds of many ?

However the REAL issue surfaces here...

On December 7th he was granted bail at the High Court, Dublin, however three days later he committed another unprovoked savage assault on a 24-year old man in Debenhams, O'Connell Street, Limerick. Judge Tom O'Donnell described the first assault on the boy in July 2015, as "most disturbing".

The real issue here,for me,is the active role played by the High Court when it reached it's Bail decision 5 MONTHS after the "Most Disturbing" attack referenced by Judge O'Donnell.

In my laymans opinion,whatever High Court Judge participated in the Bail Decision has a significant culpability for the injuries inflicted on any subsequent Victioms of this individual.

At the very least,the High Court,in such cases,should now be required to resit and outline why a Learned and Highly Experienced Bench would feel compelled to expose the general public to a substantially increased risk of physical harm,without prior forewarning.

If the High Court Judge refers,as is likely,to prior Supreme Court Judgements regarding Bail,then the matter divides into two,ie: Whether a Learned HC Judge is required to set aside commonsense,reason and valid fears for Public Safety in favour of a pre-existing Supreme Court blanket judgement OR whether The State itself should be challenging this Supreme Court generalization and forcing it to reassess it's decision in the light of reality,as outlined by this latest story in an increasing line of such events.

Nobody,and I mean NOBODY within the State's Judicial apparatus,appears willing to stand-up and be counted when it comes to actively supporting the Rights of "Ordinary" non-violent,compliant Citizens to live their lives without fear of encountering a blood-thirsty State Sponsored Savage whilst out shopping on a main street in a large City.

The victim in the Post Bail attack was required to undergo facial reconstructive surgery,with a metal plate inserted into his cheek,pictures of which procedure really does need to be shown to the members of the High Court who were involved in this case,and who as a result might be minded to consider compensating the Victim of their decision ?

The earlier versions of this sorry tale went into a bit of greater detail,which focused upon the pressing need to progress this case before this individuals 18th Birthday,and the prospect of being sentenced as an adult...something which I very much hope the State will actively strive to do.

The State is,at least applying for an order to Name this individual,which perhaps is an indication of it's helplessness in ensuring the safety of citizens after a juvenile sentence is imposed.

Disregard the attempt to drag Migrant Policy into this,because the real story is far far worse ! :mad:

Grayson

Did you write all of that to complain about migrants coming over here and taking all our victim-hood?

Grayson

wait a second. A refugee is walking down the street and is attacked by someone. And this thread is about how migrants are bad?

Jesus, our society is messed up.

TerrorFirmer

This individual is not news to the media. His story has been covered before. This particular latest act of thuggery has a different human interest angle, and within it they've also listed his previous convictions and crimes.

What do you expect - a daily or weekly update on the activities of every thug in the country? 'Scumbag continues to be scumbag'?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AlekSmart wrote: »

A disturbing story describing the rise of a violent young thug,who's appetite for extreme violence is increasing by the day.

So much forewarning,across the entire education,Garda and Justice spectrum,and yet this individual is facilitated,even encouraged to continue his crusade.

Where will it end...?

This is wehre I lost interest. I have no idea who you are talking about or what this person has sone, and you seem to have no desire to tell me. If you expect me to click on links, I nee more specific information first.

All that's missing is "you won't BELIEVE what he did NEXT!!!!"

Donald Trump

Dat's Limerick citaayyy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYgZFm43ZN4

A Dub in Glasgo

Maybe I am a bit tired but the OP makes little sense to me, can someone give me the gist of the OP

osarusan

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Maybe I am a bit tired but the OP makes little sense to me, can someone give me the gist of the OP

Yet another scumbag commits yet more crimes after being released yet again. One victim was a recently arrived refugee. Horrible stuff. OP laments the many failures and cowards in our justice system. OP wonders whether judges who make such decisions might be held liable for subsequent actions of released scumbag.

OP then kind of shoehorns in a migrant angle fairly needlessly (apparently the 'spin' is the focus on the refugee at the expense of the other victim), before telling us not to focus on it.

Grayson

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Maybe I am a bit tired but the OP makes little sense to me, can someone give me the gist of the OP

I had the same trouble. I believe that what happened is that a scumbag committed multiple crimes. Two attacks are note worthy. One was against a guy in a debenhams. That guy needed plates placed in his jaw. The other was against a 16 year old syrian refugee.

I think the OP is annoyed that the Syrian refuge was mentioned since his injuries weren't as bad. And I think he's annoyed that the scumbag was out on bail (which is fair enough. The scumbag does seem like he poses a danger to society and should be detained).

Arthur.beaker

I think the issue here is that the criminal and his criminality is considered a non story as long as his victims are Irish or possibly white Western European.

Once his victim is a refugee he and his crime becomes a story. Seems quite racist, suggesting that the crime against the refugee is somehow worse that the string of crimes committed against Irish and presumably other nationalities along the way.

The reporting of this is quiet offensive actually. All of his crimes and his victims deserve our sympathy and equal treatment.

A Dub in Glasgo

Thanks for the Readers Digest version, I agree with the OP on the first bit

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

osarusan wrote: »

Yet another scumbag commits yet more crimes after being released yet again. One victim was a recently arrived refugee. Horrible stuff. OP laments the many failures and cowards in our justice system. OP wonders whether judges who make such decisions might be held liable for subsequent actions of released scumbag.

OP then kind of shoehorns in a migrant angle fairly needlessly (apparently the 'spin' is the focus on the migrant at the expense of the other victim), before telling us not to focus on it.

Cheers. Why the **** couldn't have just written that instead of going full Niamh Horan?

TerrorFirmer

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

I think the issue here is that the criminal and his criminality is considered a non story as long as his victims are Irish or possibly white Western European.

Once his victim is a refugee he and his crime becomes a story. Seems quite racist, suggesting that the crime against the refugee is somehow worse that the string of crimes committed against Irish and presumably other nationalities along the way.

The reporting of this is quiet offensive actually. All of his crimes and his victims deserve our sympathy and equal treatment.

These stories have been covered before. This is just his latest in a long string of offenses.

Obviously the fact that he attacked a refugee who'd just arrived from a war torn country is going to be the news angle. Why wouldn't it be?

What other way would you have it? The paper have daily pull-outs reminding people of the crimes of all scumbags in previous months and years?

Every edition of the paper would be 1,000 pages long.

Grayson

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

I think the issue here is that the criminal and his criminality is considered a non story as long as his victims are Irish or possibly white Western European.

Once his victim is a refugee he and his crime becomes a story. Seems quite racist, suggesting that the crime against the refugee is somehow worse that the string of crimes committed against Irish and presumably other nationalities along the way.

The reporting of this is quiet offensive actually. All of his crimes and his victims deserve our sympathy and equal treatment.

As someone pointed out, crime happens every day. I don't think its discrimination, it's just human interest. Take for example that woman who was killed in a car crash the day after she gave birth. That got huge headlines. It doesn't mean that every other road death is less tragic. They are all tragedies.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Cheers. Why the **** couldn't have just written that instead of going full Niamh Horan?

I lolled.

K.Flyer

Apart from the nationality of any of the victims, one point interests me. Should the state be held responsible for any loss or injuries caused by this scumbag to anyone while out on bail?

Arthur.beaker

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

These stories have been covered before. This is just his latest in a long string of offenses.

Obviously the fact that he attacked a refugee who'd just arrived from a war torn country is going to be the news angle. Why wouldn't it be?

What other way would you have it? The paper have daily pull-outs reminding people of the crimes of all scumbags in previous months and years?

Every edition of the paper would be 1,000 pages long.

Were the other stories front page news? Why is the ethnicity / background of his 2nd latest victim more newsworthy as you claim? Why so little detail on the Debenhams attack? It wouldn't have been front news if the victim wasn't a refugee, how can that be considered acceptable reporting?

Grayson

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

Were the other stories front page news? Why is the ethnicity / background of his 2nd latest victim more newsworthy as you claim? Why so little detail on the Debenhams attack? It wouldn't have been front news if the victim wasn't a refugee, how can that be considered acceptable reporting?

Was this front page news? Sorry I read online and hadn't seen this story until it was posted here.

Like I said, lots of stories that wouldn't make the news normally do because of the people involved. It's the human interest angle. The same thing happened when a tourist was beaten up in Dublin.

Arthur.beaker

Grayson wrote: »

Was this front page news? Sorry I read online and hadn't seen this story until it was posted here.

Like I said, lots of stories that wouldn't make the news normally do because of the people involved. It's the human interest angle. The same thing happened when a tourist was beaten up in Dublin.

I think it was. I either read the headline on a news site or heard it on radio news at some point this week.

AlekSmart

K.Flyer wrote: »

Apart from the nationality of any of the victims, one point interests me. Should the state be held responsible for any loss or injuries caused by this scumbag to anyone while out on bail?

Should it...?

I would suggest that in this particular case...absolutely.

We are regularly reminded,on boards,and across the media spectrum,that our judiciary are comprised of people whose Intelligence & Comprehension are beyond common understanding.

Whilst the Legal profession will point loftily to The Constitution as the font of all commonsense,I would suggest that the real threat of being held accountable for bailing savages to prey on the rest of us,might just focus a few bewigged heads on reality ?

The granting of bail to this individual directly resulted in the Debenhams assault,followed by the more recent Migrant focused one...Neither would have occured had the High Court not decided to release a known violent perpetrator back into society.

Who's civil-rights take precedence in the High and Supreme Courts....

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

The granting of bail to this individual directly resulted in the Debenhams assault,followed by the more recent Migrant focused one...Neither would have occured had the High Court not decided to release a known violent perpetrator back into society.

My reading of it was that there were 2 assaults. 1 on the teenager, where he was granted bail in the High Court - and we do not know the evidence that was given by the State in objecting to bail - and for which he is now being sentenced, and 1 following his release on bail for that attack.

On the face of it, if the State can only point to the accusation itself as grounds for resisting bail...well the High Court will usually release. They need a bit more, a pattern of serious offences, a risk of flight or witness intimidation etc. The Courts interpret those pretty narrowly, it's up to the legislature to broaden the terms set out in the Bail Act 1997 as amended.

If you think the Judge's role is easy, pick the most recent reported bail application and tell us when that accused will offend again and what will he do. Anyone can do the hindsight thing.

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

My reading of it was that there were 2 assaults. 1 on the teenager, where he was granted bail in the High Court - and we do not know the evidence that was given by the State in objecting to bail - and for which he is now being sentenced, and 1 following his release on bail for that attack.

On the face of it, if the State can only point to the accusation itself as grounds for resisting bail...well the High Court will usually release. They need a bit more, a pattern of serious offences, a risk of flight or witness intimidation etc. The Courts interpret those pretty narrowly, it's up to the legislature to broaden the terms set out in the Bail Act 1997 as amended.

If you think the Judge's role is easy, pick the most recent reported bail application and tell us when that accused will offend again and what will he do. Anyone can do the hindsight thing.

I don't actually think a Judges role is "easy"...but I would make it more so,by the simple expedient of significantly limiting the availability of bail to those who have previously been convicted of violent crime.

I'd be very content with TWO Strikes and you're staying IN as a general rule,rather than the continual handwringing,whataboutery and associated maybe'ing,that is currently the norm in matters Bail.

If a bail applicant has two prior convictions for Violent Crime,then I'm not particularly concerned about the "chances" or "likelyhood" of them re-offending whilst out on bail,I would on balance be very satisfied with them remaining locked-up until they are tried for their latest offence.

It would,of copurse require more confinement space,but as with many such things,the effectivity of it would soon be seen to have an effect as word filters down that actually being a savage,will see you remaining in a cage,rather than strutting about the town displaying your dominance for all to see.

It's not actually about Hindisght at all,it's about using the power of Reason to support Foresight,in protecting the bulk of Society from abberant,violent,sociopathic individuals.

If this concept is somehow in contravention of our 1932 Constitution,then lets CHANGE the damn thing !!!!!

Your Face

Is this a logic exercise?
I love these.

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'd be very content with TWO Strikes and you're staying IN as a general rule,rather than the continual handwringing,whataboutery and associated maybe'ing,that is currently the norm in matters Bail.

If a bail applicant has two prior convictions for Violent Crime,then I'm not particularly concerned about the "chances" or "likelyhood" of them re-offending whilst out on bail,I would on balance be very satisfied with them remaining locked-up until they are tried for their latest offence.

So again, from my reading of this matter, he would be out on bail as he had only one strike in the sense of one matter pending. Indeed, if you need convictions, it would seem like he had zero strikes, as obviously he was not convicted and would not even have been arraigned for the attack with the hurley. That was the vey matter in which he was applying for bail.

I agree with you on the idea of convictions for violent crime...I just think the application of that idea in this example would have reached the same result, he would have been out on bail when he committed the second attack.