nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Drug dealer gets just desserts or is that too harsh

CB19Kevo

Maybe just me,But i am finding it hard to have sympathy for the drug dealer killed by one of his customers while intimidating him over a drug debt.
Still think the sentence is far too lenient though,Carrying a knife says enough.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0119/846131-william-gilsenan-edward-fitzgerald/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

endacl

CaSCaDe711 wrote: »

Carrying a knife alone, is there not a mandatory sentence for that?

No. I always have a knife with me. Have done for years. Use it at least once a day for something or other.

learn_more

I don't know why ppl think that if drugs were legalized that that would get rid of crime. There would still be junkies and they would still have to steal to feed their habit, regardless of where they buy their heroin.

So that's crimes against the average citizen but as far as gang-infighting or turf wars are concerned I couldn't care less about any of that and I wouldn't in a million years legalize drugs to eliminate that, not that it would. I wouldn't ever feel bad if I head some dealer were murdered. Actually, I find all that news quite amusing, not that I think it's okay. I don't really fell sorry for them is what I mean.

Anyway, the real story here is the shocking light sentence. "He didn't mean to do it". If he didn't mean to damage the man physically then what was it he though he was achieving with the knife by sticking it into the victim. Tickling him maybe?

The most worrying part of the sentencing logic to me is that I think the judge looked at the class background of the man and made a sympathetic judgement based on the fact the he probably can't help being a street scumbag and judged him on lower standards. I suspect strongly that's what the judge did and I find that very concerning.

Graces7

Grayson wrote: »

Most drugs aren't addictive and most users aren't addicts.
For the few drugs that are addictive, most drug dealers are actually users themselves. they sell small amounts to make enough to keep themselves in drugs.

????? Not true.

xckjoo

learn_more wrote: »

I don't know why ppl think that if drugs were legalized that that would get rid of crime. There would still be junkies and they would still have to steal to feed their habit, regardless of where they buy their heroin.

So that's crimes against the average citizen but as far as gang-infighting or turf wars are concerned I couldn't care less about any of that and I wouldn't in a million years legalize drugs to eliminate that, not that it would. I wouldn't ever feel bad if I head some dealer were murdered. Actually, I find all that news quite amusing, not that I think it's okay. I don't really fell sorry for them is what I mean.

Anyway, the real story here is the shocking light sentence. "He didn't mean to do it". If he didn't mean to damage the man physically then what was it he though he was achieving with the knife by sticking it into the victim. Tickling him maybe?

The most worrying part of the sentencing logic to me is that I think the judge looked at the class background of the man and made a sympathetic judgement based on the fact the he probably can't help being a street scumbag and judged him on lower standards. I suspect strongly that's what the judge did and I find that very concerning.

People don't mean that it'll stop junkies stealing stuff if drugs were legalised. They mean that it'll take the profit out of trafficking and selling drugs and drug gangs won't be trying to kill each other to take over turf. And as much as you might not care about drug dealers killing each other, what about the innocent people that get caught in the crossfire?

Have a look at the show Narcos that's based on the life of Pablo Escobar. He amassed a near infinite wealth by being willing to kill/maim/kidnap/whatever to keep his hold on the cocaine market. This wouldn't have happened if he was dealing in something legal.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Graces7 wrote: »

????? Not true.

Which part?

It depends, though, on how you define addictiveness. What one person gets addicted to, someone else might have a perfectly good time with occasional usage.

Irish Guitarist

Gilsenan pulled out a knife and Mr Fitzgerald died after he was stabbed in the leg and the heart.

The judge said he accepted the jury's finding that the killing was not deliberate and sentenced Gilsenan to six years in prison with two suspended.

The last thing you expect when you stab someone in the heart is for them to die. The knife should have had a warning written on it.

shanno666

Not exactly kinahan level now was he ? the amount of people who thinks he deserved is frightening,could be just a lad who gets an ounce of weed and sells a bit to get some free smoke or a could be a smaller time dealer i dont think either deserve a death sentence.I do think manslaughter was the right verdict but i think the sentence was a little light

bucketybuck

shanno666 wrote: »

Not exactly kinahan level now was he ? the amount of people who thinks he deserved is frightening,could be just a lad who gets an ounce of weed and sells a bit to get some free smoke or a could be a smaller time dealer i dont think either deserve a death sentence.I do think manslaughter was the right verdict but i think the sentence was a little light

He was of a level that felt the need to go out and intimidate people with the intent of taking their money, why pretend he was some gentle Gerry that wouldn't hurt a fly?

slovakchick

4 years for taking a life is very short

ScumLord

learn_more wrote: »

I don't know why ppl think that if drugs were legalized that that would get rid of crime. There would still be junkies and they would still have to steal to feed their habit, regardless of where they buy their heroin.

So that's crimes against the average citizen but as far as gang-infighting or turf wars are concerned I couldn't care less about any of that and I wouldn't in a million years legalize drugs to eliminate that, not that it would. I wouldn't ever feel bad if I head some dealer were murdered. Actually, I find all that news quite amusing, not that I think it's okay. I don't really fell sorry for them is what I mean.

Legalising drugs would effectively destroy organised crime gangs as we know them. I've described it before like telling apple they couldn't sell the iPhone. Apple would survive but as a much smaller company and it wouldn't have the powers it had as a larger company. Organised crime simply wouldn't be able to fund itself without drugs.

It would drastically reduce the amount of junkies too. The state won't be trying to get young and vulnerable people to use drugs, so many of those people that are preyed upon by drug pushers simply wouldn't end up as junkies. With the collapse of the market the gangs wouldn't be able to justify the costs and risks of importing the drug and it would become too expensive for the majority of people to use.

Bicky bicky

"intent of taking their money"

Wasn't a product supplied and not paid for?

Obligatory kids don't do "on tick", you don't know who else hasnt paid, or pressures your supplier may be under.

Top tip students and hippys have the best drugs!

El_Duderino 09

Zaph wrote:

Why just our government? Drugs are illegal in pretty much every country in the world. There's clearly a reason for that.

Some drugs are illegal but lots of drugs are legal. I imagine the booze lobby would be the loudest voice against legalising any other drugs.

mcmananam1980

he is still human and these wrong do not make rijht
such a horridle waste of life

me_right_one

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Well as long as they are illegal there's going to be crime and murder. I think at this stage they need to try something different.

Yea. Like keeping the customers who are keeping these murderers in business, off our streets. Users are just as guilty.

Augeo wrote: »

Paedophiles, rapists, serial killers, granny bashers etc etc etc

They're all as bad as each other. I'd say paedos are a fraction of a degree worse than drug users / dealers

Grayson wrote: »

Most drugs aren't addictive and most users aren't addicts.
For the few drugs that are addictive, most drug dealers are actually users themselves. they sell small amounts to make enough to keep themselves in drugs.

Incorrect, and no excuse even if it was correct. Nobody had a gun to their head to force them to take that first drug.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then this isn't a drugs issue. He might as well have been selling fireworks or cigarettes.

Yea, but fireworks aren't addictive. They dont poison your mind and make you think certain things are ok when clearly they're not. Like stabbing people in the heart, for example.

El_Duderino 09

me_right_one wrote:

They're all as bad as each other. I'd say paedos are a fraction of a degree worse than drug users / dealers

Yeah having the lads around for a dooby and a beer is slightly less bad than having the lads around for an auld paedophile session. FFS

Goya

I don't take them myself (and I hate the culture surrounding cocaine) but drugs besides heroin, crack and meth can be consumed recreationally (like alcoholic drinks). Just because people don't like to hear that, doesn't mean it's incorrect/untrue. Taking stupid amounts - like drinking stupid amounts - is what's harmful. Those predisposed to addiction are the ones who become addicted, not anyone at all who takes them. There are numerous people who just take a drug at music festivals and new years parties and that's it for the whole year. And there are numerous people who take them until a certain age and then never go near them again.

And decriminalisation would reduce the scummy gang element. Plus, they'd be prepared in more sanitary conditions. Limits could also be put on how much is sold at a time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

me_right_one wrote: »

Yea, but fireworks aren't addictive. They dont poison your mind and make you think certain things are ok when clearly they're not. Like stabbing people in the heart, for example.

.... and yet fireworks, when used irrespeonsibly, still cause damage.

I also like the way you discreetly ignored the word "tobacco" - no responce to that one eh?

My point stands: it was a murder over 100 euro. What the cause of the debt was is irrelevant.

ScumLord

me_right_one wrote: »

Yea. Like keeping the customers who are keeping these murderers in business, off our streets. Users are just as guilty.

the state and people who oppose legalisation are just as guilty. The state created the black market and protects it through keeping it a black market. The people who oppose less draconian drug laws are supporting a system that makes things worse, it's a well known fact that drug production and consumption have gone up exponentially since prohibition started. It's had the exact opposite effect it was intended to have with the added bonus of creating well funded organised crime.

Yea, but fireworks aren't addictive. They dont poison your mind and make you think certain things are ok when clearly they're not. Like stabbing people in the heart, for example.

Drugs don't poison your mind make you stab people either. You seem very quick to jump to conclusions based on one event, there were probably hundreds if not thousands of people on the same drug as him that very night and they didn't stab anyone so the statistics aren't in your favour.

It's not very productive to simplify the world into good guys and bad guys.

[Deleted User]

me_right_one wrote: »

............. I'd say paedos are a fraction of a degree worse than drug users / dealers
............

haha

I love reading stuff like this, keeps me grounded to know there are still absolute total fncktards stuck under their mammies aprons