Taking justice in your own hands

Rory28

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'll ask again, I might get an answer this time. Wanderer was unable to. How did elderly in rural areas survive years ago when they didn't have cars??

I don't know what most did but my grandfather had a donkey and cart and a bicycle for travelling to and from the shops/pub back in the day but he would rarely leave the farm. The road he used to live on is now in the middle of two quarries which. It is no longer safe to cycle these roads let alone put a donkey and cart out there.

50 years ago there was fcuk all cars in the sticks so you could get away with other means of transport. These days there is basically 2 cars to every house.

Graces7

suicide_circus wrote: »

If the state fails to deliver justice I wouldn't hold it against a citizen for achieving justice by their own means, so long as it is proportionate.

:rolleyes:

weldoninhio

Graces7 wrote: »

Not commit assault?

Sorry, you must have misread my last post. I asked "What should I have done?", not what should I not have done.

thebull85

weldoninhio wrote: »

As I stated, I'd given the Garda the assailants name and address, the contact details for the manager who had the assault on CCTV, the contact details for 2 bouncers who had witnessed it in person, as well as the contact details of 5 or more people who had seen it. He refused to do anything,

what should I have done??

you done what was right and fair play to you for doing it.

weisses

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sorry, you must have misread my last post. I asked "What should I have done?", not what should I not have done.

Keep pressure on the guards, go higher up the ranks when nothing is done ?

Rory28

weisses wrote: »

Keep pressure on the guards, go higher up the ranks when nothing is done ?

Pure fantasy. He gave them all the information they needed but they did nothing. He will only get arrested himself after he eventually loses the head at being brushed off again and again.

Sleepy

Graces7 wrote: »

Unkind,even insensitive..

Moving area costs in many ways. Far too much to expect of an old person who has lived in their village all their lives

Maybe think of adding practical resources to enable folk to stay in their homes. Rural transport... volunteers...

What you write epitomises so much

As you should realise at your age, real life is neither kind nor sensitive. We can't all have everything we want and it's childish to assume we can.

An old person who has lived in their village all their life should have no need of a car: they're already in the village and it will have some level of public transport. If they're living outside the village where no public transport exists (or the level of public transport that's economically sustainable isn't sufficient to their needs) tough luck,

They should have either considered the likelihood that they'd need to provide for the employment of a driver in their twilight years during their pension planning or they should move somewhere that is suitable for them.

Sadly, we don't live in a idyll, our society has limited resources and, quite frankly, those in their twilight years are most to blame for just how limited those resources are: it has been governments they elected over their adult lives that are responsible for the level of the National Debt, the shambes most of our public sector is in and the lack of planning that allowed so many isolated properties to be built in the first place.

The very people you expect the state to accomodate are those most responsible for not only the situations they find themselves in but also the inability of the state to accomodate them.

weisses

Rory28 wrote: »

Pure fantasy. He gave them all the information they needed but they did nothing. He will only get arrested himself after he eventually loses the head at being brushed off again and again.

He asked what he should have done ... And what I said is exactly what he should have done

FunLover18

Once you take justice into your own hands, it's no longer justice.

weldoninhio

FunLover18 wrote: »

Once you take justice into your own hands, it's no longer justice.

Maybe not, but it felt good and it solved the problem.

Raging_Ninja

Graces7 wrote: »

They are becoming criminals. Period. As bad as the one who hurt them, or worse, because they are setting themselves up as judge and jury. Lawless.

If the courts and police won't even observe the law, doesn't that mean that it is already lawless?

The social contract we have as citizens is that we observe the law and allow the state to to apply the law on our behalves so that mob justice isn't meted out.

If the state fails in its responsibilities by refusing to provide people with justice, people will take it for themselves.

Raging_Ninja

FunLover18 wrote: »

Once you take justice into your own hands, it's no longer justice.

Maybe not, but if the state won't even apply the laws or will only do it selectively then there is no other way for people to get justice.

FunLover18

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

FunLover18 wrote: »

Once you take justice into your own hands, it's no longer justice.

Maybe not, but if the state won't even apply the laws or will only do it selectively then there is no other way for people to get justice.

They'll get a sense of self-gratification but I would seriously question their sense of justice.

AtomicHorror

weldoninhio wrote: »

Maybe not, but it felt good and it solved the problem.

And if it turned out to be the perpetrator's brother or cousin?

If it turned out your beating that person had caused permanent damage?

Or death? Plenty of people die from single punch attacks. Plenty of attackers find they've killed someone without meaning to.

You'll likely roll your eyes at those possibilities, but there's good reasons why vigilantism is not acceptable.

Do you have a spouse or children, out of interest? How would they be impacted if they knew of your actions? How would they be impacted if you accidentally maimed or killed a person, or worse, the wrong person?

weldoninhio wrote: »

My beef is people who are a danger to themselves and others, getting behind the wheel of a 2 tonne machine that is capable of killing someone and others making excuses for them. Silly thing to be worried about, eh?

Not at all, but it can be true that this is something that should not be allowed while also being true that rural folks have a disproportional dependence on cars (and that we as a society aren't addressing that problem). I'm trying to understand why you feel the need to keep calling out the rural population issue as if it's controversial when it isn't. If your line is that it doesn't justify the actions of rural people, then just say that. Most would agree.

thebull85

This is not a thread about old people going the shops. Can we drop it lads?

Graces7

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sorry, you must have misread my last post. I asked "What should I have done?", not what should I not have done.

No I did not misread you . Should have accepted the situation OR gone above the local Gardai heads to higher up the chain . I have had to do that .

And restrained your thirst for ??? revenge????

Got on with your life.

If the law says assault is wrong then that applies to everyone, in all situations,

Graces7

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Maybe not, but if the state won't even apply the laws or will only do it selectively then there is no other way for people to get justice.

Violent revenge is not justice. It is not the punishment the law allows. So ?

There's a reason why an independent judge and jury are use in trials

AudreyHepburn

suicide_circus wrote: »

If the state fails to deliver justice I wouldn't hold it against a citizen for achieving justice by their own means, so long as it is proportionate.

And therein lies the problem - in 99% of cases the means are not proportional. People get a rush of blood to the head and just react.

jester77

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Hmmm, can someone who may have physical health issues, carry shopping home? Were our communities closer knit 50 years ago? Spend much time around elderly people, walking tends to be a problem with their physical health issues?

Things have changed.

Where my parents live now, you wouldn't walk to the shops and back in the same day. There is no public transport either.

40 years ago, there was a post office that was a 30 minute walk away, there was a small shop with the basics just 10 minutes away and there was a bus once a week that stopped in front of that shop and took people to nearest town.

Gravelly

jester77 wrote: »

Things have changed.

Where my parents live now, you wouldn't walk to the shops and back in the same day. There is no public transport either.

40 years ago, there was a post office that was a 30 minute walk away, there was a small shop with the basics just 10 minutes away and there was a bus once a week that stopped in front of that shop and took people to nearest town.

Similar to where I'm from - when I was a kid I walked or cycled to school and to the shops. Nowadays you'd be taking your life in your hands walking the same road, and the shop I walked to is long gone.

Jim Bob Scratcher

weldoninhio wrote: »

Maybe not, but it felt good and it solved the problem.

Not really, unfortunately it just creates a whole load of other problems.

weldoninhio

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And if it turned out to be the perpetrator's brother or cousin?

If it turned out your beating that person had caused permanent damage?

Or death? Plenty of people die from single punch attacks. Plenty of attackers find they've killed someone without meaning to.

You'll likely roll your eyes at those possibilities, but there's good reasons why vigilantism is not acceptable.

Do you have a spouse or children, out of interest? How would they be impacted if they knew of your actions? How would they be impacted if you accidentally maimed or killed a person, or worse, the wrong person?



Not at all, but it can be true that this is something that should not be allowed while also being true that rural folks have a disproportional dependence on cars (and that we as a society aren't addressing that problem). I'm trying to understand why you feel the need to keep calling out the rural population issue as if it's controversial when it isn't. If your line is that it doesn't justify the actions of rural people, then just say that. Most would agree.

I knew the guy, so there was no chance of me getting his brother/cousin. And if it had caused him permanent damage/death and I was caught I’d hold my hands up to it and take my punishment. If I wasn’t caught and it was a public appeal/unsolved case I’d say nothing.

He’d started it, the police had been given a chance to deal with it.

I wasn’t in a relationship/have children when this happened 10+ years ago.

weldoninhio

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Not really, unfortunately it just creates a whole load of other problems.

It happened 10 or more years ago now. I haven’t encountered a single problem related to it since.

Realt Dearg Sec

So you should be allowed break the law because it felt good to you to do so even though it definitely involved violent damage to someone's life, but old people shouldn't be allowed to break the law because they need to in order to have any quality of life, because it might cause violent damage to someone else.

Well that's a great basis for a society of laws. Your posts reek of a breathtaking level of selfishness, where manifestly wrong actions of your own are justifiable because it felt good to you while morally questionable actions of others are never justifiable. I notice, incidentally, that having demanded a response to your question about fifty years ago, when several very good explanations were given you failed to acknowledge any of them.

Tenz

Sleepy wrote: »

An old person who has lived in their village all their life should have no need of a car: they're already in the village and it will have some level of public transport. If they're living outside the village where no public transport exists (or the level of public transport that's economically sustainable isn't sufficient to their needs) tough luck,

I could name dozens of small villages that have absolutely no public transport. I imagine there must be thousands all across the country. And many of those villages had a shop or two, a pub, and probably petrol pumps only a few years ago. All gone now.

Sofiztikated

When I was 4, my brother was hit on his motorbike, by a drunk driver, on the wrong side of the road, on a sharp hill.

The drunk driver was fined £200.

He still lives in the same town as my family, I could easily go and do something awful to him, in the name of "justice." But in reality, I'd just be beating up an old man, whose wife left him due to his drinking. Would it bring the brother I never knew back? Not at all. Would it save my mother and father all the hurt they've lived with? Nope.

I've seen the small town feuds, and how they continue from generation to generation. Giving someone a hiding because they've wronged you is stupid.

weldoninhio

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

So you should be allowed break the law because it felt good to you to do so even though it definitely involved violent damage to someone's life, but old people shouldn't be allowed to break the law because they need to in order to have any quality of life, because it might cause violent damage to someone else.

Well that's a great basis for a society of laws. Your posts reek of a breathtaking level of selfishness, where manifestly wrong actions of your own are justifiable because it felt good to you while morally questionable actions of others are never justifiable. I notice, incidentally, that having demanded a response to your question about fifty years ago, when several very good explanations were given you failed to acknowledge any of them.

I acknowledged them as “hearsay and waffle”.

I didn’t want to break the law, but the Gardai refused to deal with it and action had to be taken. And trying to use me punching someone to an elderly person who is unfit to be on the road using a car is farcical.

Tell me, would you rather be hit with a punch or by a car?? Which one will do most damage? If you are out with your family and someone punched you, your family would be fine. If you are out with your family and someone crashes into you, they may not be fine.

Skyrimaddict

It is good an useful sometimes. We live in a society so regulated now that scumbags just have to drop a comment about race, human rights, GDPR, islamophobe, homeophobe, etc etc and no one wants to deal with them.

I sh1t you not, a guy threw a full bag of rubbish out of a car today and was stopped by a guard, the guy was black and said to the guard if he was white he wouldnt have been stopped and the guard just let him off. Didnt want the hassle.


I would happily bust the head of a great many people.

Realt Dearg Sec

weldoninhio wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

So you should be allowed break the law because it felt good to you to do so even though it definitely involved violent damage to someone's life, but old people shouldn't be allowed to break the law because they need to in order to have any quality of life, because it might cause violent damage to someone else.

Well that's a great basis for a society of laws. Your posts reek of a breathtaking level of selfishness, where manifestly wrong actions of your own are justifiable because it felt good to you while morally questionable actions of others are never justifiable. I notice, incidentally, that having demanded a response to your question about fifty years ago, when several very good explanations were given you failed to acknowledge any of them.

I acknowledged them as “hearsay and waffle”.

I didn’t want to break the law, but the Gardai refused to deal with it and action had to be taken. And trying to use me punching someone to an elderly person who is unfit to be on the road using a car is farcical.

Tell me, would you rather be hit with a punch or by a car?? Which one will do most damage? If you are out with your family and someone punched you, your family would be fine. If you are out with your family and someone crashes into you, they may not be fine.

You didn't say you punched him you said you beat him to a bloody pulp. And seeing as how even one punch to the Head can lead to death, that's extremely dangerous business. I'm not saying you weren't justified, I'm sure the scumbag you laid out deserved every ounce of it, it's just not good for a society to allow that kind of retributive, self administered "Justice". It's a recipe for a nightmare society.

As for your response to the explanations, could you clarify whether the decline of rural services like post offices and shops are hearsay, or waffle? Because they're obviously facts. Is the replacement of horses and traps (which were obviously safe to drive drunk in an era without many cars on the road and moving themselves at about fifteen miles an hour) with cars that render the former dangerous hearsay, or is it waffle? Or are they making that up?