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

You can stab someone in the face in Dublin now, and not go to prison.

Options
1235

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    They do now.

    I pointed out already that media reports will generally make it explicitly clear when a victim is stabbed in the face, and why they would be explicit about it. It’s only posters here assumed the victim in this instance was stabbed in the face, and they ran with it. Here’s an example (from NI) where the victim was stabbed in the face, a number of times on this occasion, and the perpetrator was arrested on suspicion of grevious bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence -

    A 19-year-old man was arrested a short time later on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence.

    https://www.breakingnews.ie/amp/ireland/teenager-to-undergo-surgery-after-being-stabbed-in-the-face-1412640.html

    You see the difference now?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Jack why are you doubling down so hard on this? You’re just wrong mate it’s that simple let it go.

    youre forever at this craic of raising a point, having it completely demolished and just doubling down.

    Let me make it perfectly clear: no one in news media reports on someone’s arse being stabbed as “they were stabbed in the cheek”. Like what the hell are you even trying to argue this for



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,622 ✭✭✭Nermal




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,213 ✭✭✭sonic85


    Gotta say - I'm kinda shocked at some of the responses here. All the stories of assault against women floating around and people say they wouldn't get involved - and actively ridiculing people who would intervene. The world is well and truly fcuked



  • Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Ham_Sandwich


    16 only a child and the lock em up brigade out again want to rob a child of there freedom over one wrong turn



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Cause people like Jack like to muddy the water. Nothing is ever crystal clear, there is no black and white, only a grey.

    It's Tan tactic used in negotiations in combination with whataboutery which makes it impossible to argue, as people forget what they're arguing about and drags on the arguing indefinitely.

    The trick is to just ignore.

    Like, we're arguing now about an arse being called a cheek or vice versa instead of the overly lenient sentence.

    EDIT: the correct terminology is "A filibuster"

    Post edited by Beta Ray Bill on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Let the people who’s job it is deal with that deal with it. We’ve seen exactly what happens when people intervene where they are not wanted.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You only get arrested and convicted if you do it in self defence in Ireland



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,213 ✭✭✭sonic85


    It's already been pointed out to you - possibly multiple times that calling the guards is a lottery at best. They might arrive too late or maybe not at all. In the meantime should you just stroll on by while someone gets assaulted - physically or otherwise?


    How do you know an intervention isn't wanted? Is that your opinion or do you have something to back it up? In certain cases yes you might get both parties turning on you but I'd wager in most cases that doesn't happen. That case in Fermoy was already mentioned - a woman was saved from certain rape possibly more by people stepping in.


    Thank fcuk not everyone is like you



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Two cheeks of the same arse mate 😬


    (sorry, I couldn’t resist 😖)



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    I’m not doubling down on it, I’ve since provided supporting evidence for why I believed it was reasonable in the first place to presume the perpetrator had stabbed the victim in the cheek of his arse rather than the cheek of his face. Why not say the leg and the face then? Because if it’s left ambiguous, it allows for people to imagine the worst, as opposed to what actually happened.

    You demonstrated it yourself earlier in the thread when you admitted you thought the OP was being facetious, but it turned out they weren’t. They were, because what they claimed in the title of the thread didn’t happen, it’s misleading, just like claiming the victim was stabbed in the face when there’s no article makes it clear that he was stabbed in the face. The article says he was stabbed in the leg and the cheek, and people ran with the more exaggerated version that he was stabbed in the face, one poster going so far as to suggest being stabbed in the face is attempted murder, which is why I made the point about using that logic to suggest that my classmate putting a thumbtack under my arse as I sat down would have been charged with attempted murder. When I put it like that, it shows how stupid it sounds to make exaggerated claims and have people believe them as though they are what actually happened.

    The article doesn’t even clarify what type of blade was used, but going off my own experiences, it’s rarely butterfly knives and more often Stanley knives, which are a bit shyte for stabbing, better for slicing. If someone used a Stanley knife (and now I think of it some people call them blades), it’s probably superficial rather than any life threatening damage was inflicted. Again though, the article is purposely ambiguous on that front.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Nothing stopping you talking about what you consider an overly lenient sentence, but for me it’s more fundamental to understand what the sentence was actually for, before I’d be making any ill-informed complaints about it being too lenient.

    As far as the Courts are concerned, they got it right, but I’m not going to accuse anyone of filibustering because they’re of the belief that Irish society is in the shìtter and this sentence is just another example of how weak Irish society has become and all the rest of it, and how we need to be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” sloganeering nonsense to introduce their wedge issues into the discussion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Huh?

    Most politicians are men, and have traditionally been men, who introduced as you put it “these crazy laws”; most Judges are men, who you claim are “traditionally tough on crime” who hand down lenient sentences, the Judge in this case has something of a reputation for it, and yet somehow you still manage to hold women responsible for something they aren’t responsible for?

    Would rising crime levels have anything to do with the idea that in just the same way as men are “traditionally hard on crime”, there’s many more men who are committed to a life of crime, and there’s as many men who are lenient on both the causes and consequences and punishment of crimes committed by men?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    Guess what would happen to me if I ended up in court for decking (and potentially to kill them) if I put them in hospital?

    I'd be the loser. Most of these type of domestics will turn into 2:1 in no time at all. Anything at hand will be used. Including high heels!



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Nah I don’t think that’s at all fair. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why other people wouldn’t want to involve themselves in a fracas or even when it looks like someone is clearly in trouble, because for every example you can cite of a positive outcome, they’re able to cite many hundreds times more negative outcomes, and the ones which are fatal for the Good Samaritan who intervened. It’s even more understandable when it’s based upon their own personal experiences of having intervened and come off the worst of it. Circumstances like that will undoubtedly influence a person’s judgment and risk assessment, and they shouldn’t be condemned for it IMO. I don’t agree with them, but I do understand where they’re coming from.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    Come on. 50% of the population. Might as well say all men.

    Their pretty little heads couldn't possibly hope to deal with the horrid, horrid world without us men folk.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Nah man, that’s pure nonsense talk. Did saying mass get Josepha Madigan more votes, or was it her position on abortion, or was it her achievements as Minister of State for Special Education and Inclusion in highlighting schools which refused to engage with the Dept of Education?

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/culture-minister-steps-up-in-local-church-to-say-mass-as-priest-a-no-show-37045322.html

    https://www.breakingnews.ie/amp/ireland/josepha-madigan-criticised-for-naming-schools-in-dispute-over-special-education-1325583.html

    It’s never the case that there is only a choice between two politicians of either extreme, and that on it’s own anyway wouldn’t mean anything because while politicians can introduce members bills, they can’t on their own pass legislation.

    You’re also wrong in suggesting that women will vote for the bleeding heart when examining our current crop, the bleeding hearts types are squarely in a minority.

    That’s not even approaching the fact that nobody votes on a justice system, neither women nor men, but men have far greater influence in our justice system simply because there’s more of them involved in our justice system, so if you’re looking to find fault with the justice system, it’s not women who can be held responsible for it when they had no part in it, it’s men, voted for by men, overseen by men, for crimes committed by men, against men, and treated leniently by men.

    Women are hardly even represented in that scenario, and historically speaking they haven’t been, so trying to hold women responsible for what men have done is just a continuation of what has always gone before. Rather than holding people responsible for their actions, you want to hold women responsible for the actions of men. Deal with whatever your own issues are before thinking you can tell other people to deal with your issues. They’re far less likely to be as civil about it as I’m having to be here.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Nolan doesn't care that much about victims and is one of the biggest arse*oles in Ireland. This scumbag could easily of stabbed the man in the eye. We have far too many bleeding hearts in Ireland who don't seen to be able to see things from the victims point of view



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    This scumbag could easily of stabbed the man in the eye.


    Wherever else he stabbed him, the scumbag didn’t stab him in the eye, that much we know for certain. And since there are various degrees of assault, sentencing can and does vary, which is why it’s important to know the nature of the assault before being able to form the opinion that the sentence was too lenient.

    Going the other way would mean the sentence would be regarded as disproportionate, that’s not being bleeding hearted about it, it’s being realistic and taking all factors into consideration in any particular case. It would be disproportionate for example to sentence a youth to life imprisonment for assault on the lower end of the scale. And what would it actually accomplish other than nothing? Lengthier sentences for young offenders are invariably like an apprenticeship which turns them into hardened criminals, as opposed to the intent of the justice system which is restorative or rehabilitative justice, as opposed to retributive justice which encourages vigilantism.

    Justice isn’t about just seeing things from the victims point of view, it’s about taking a much broader view of society and maintaining order and protecting everyone in society, ensuring that we don’t become a dysfunctional, dystopian, oppressive society based upon punishing people for things they might do, as opposed to what they have actually done. The reason your ideas will never become reality isn’t because there are too many bleeding hearts, it’s because it’s entirely irrational… and that’s being kind.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    Hmmm. I'm pretty sure society doesn't give a thumbs up to people getting stabbed in the face.

    Maybe I'm an outlier and think its a bit of a no-no.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    I’ve no idea how you got that from anything I said in the post you quoted, but no, of course society doesn’t give a thumbs up to people getting stabbed in the face, nor does society give a thumbs up to locking young people up for petty crimes and throwing away the key, which was more the point I was making.

    It’s like when you asked me earlier had I ever been in that situation, and someone else asked me would I want the person in prison. I responded honestly then too that I’d want them dead (don’t care about prison), but I know that if I do that, then I could be charged with a number of more serious charges ranging from assault to manslaughter to murder… and my wife would kill me if I ended up in that situation because then I wouldn’t be able to provide for and protect my family and they’d be left to rely on “tough on crime” touting gobshytes making up the rules as they go along to suit themselves.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude




  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    What, you need help with the definition or something?

    type of crime that is not considered serious when compared with some other crimes

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/petty-crime



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    I suppose you think stabbing someone in the face near their eye would be a petty crime? The scumbag getting off the bus and following the victim tells you something about the nature of the assault. What the bleeding hearts don't seem to realise is that when a scumbag is behind bars that means that scumbag can't assault, rob or rape a member of the public until we let them out.

    Justice should start with seeing things from the victims point of view as it can take a victim many years to recover from what happened to them. If the jails are full they we should be giving scumbags lengthy community service instead of sending the message that assault and robbery are not a big deal



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,120 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    You know what question you didn't answer?

    the one you were asked.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,851 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    As an ex-Garda with 10 years behind me who at times had no choice but to get involved in these (on-duty, like feck I'd work off-duty!), the best advice I can give is to not get involved. Most the time, it's not worth it and you could end up like example in this case. I think someone else hit the nail on the head, what do you expect someone who is berating, roaring, shouting and possibly hitting their partner in public to do when you intervene? "Oh, sorry bud, my bad, I'll behave myself". Nah, they're already aggro and you've just given them a free target.

    Yeah, it's crappy but that's the world we live in now. Years and years ago, I would have probably stepped in, but not now. We all have our own issues, I don't like to add any more to mine. No one else on the bus would care about me anyway, so why should I care about them? Want this to change? Sort out the judiciary, sort out prison spaces, sort out Garda numbers. Giving out to people for (rightfully) not getting involved won't get you anywhere. We need criminals to be afraid of breaking the law, and at the moment they're not.

    Also, I don't believe anyone is saying that stabbing someone is petty. At least, I hope not. Stabbing someone is not petty... It's pretty fricken serious. And I'd also be of the opinion that just a slightly different hand movement or body turn and that knife could have ended somewhere fatal. Also, getting stabbed sucks in general.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Look mate you wanna be John Rambo going around that’s up to yourself. I won’t be taking a chance of getting stabbed in me face to save some stranger.

    I’ll leave it to the garda.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭batman_oh


    Which is it? Men need to step up like the media campaign told us last year or mind your own business or you deserve to get stabbed and we won't do a anything about it. Hard to follow these days.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,549 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    I am John Rambo.

    Truthfully though, I've been in a situation on the DART where three older men were sexually harassing two preteen age girls (pre mobile phone era). They were drunk, full on groping and harassing them and it was getting out of hand. I was the only one on the carriage.

    I felt I'd no choice but to intervene and risk a punch in the mouth or a good hiding. There was no way I was going to overpower the three drunk men, they were rough and well used to scraps. I managed to wangle my way out of it by speaking in Irish (men weren't Irish) to the girls as if I knew them and they jumped up and got off the next stop with me. I think they were too surprised to react, but it was really squeaky bum time.

    Sometimes you have to defend. Even if they're strangers.



Advertisement