A teenager and a young child have been injured in a shooting at a halting site in west Dublin.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Wonder is this pillar of society the fruit of his loins:http://www.dublinpeople.com/news/northsidewest/articles/2016/05/25/4120396-teenager-stabbed-homeless-man-in-the-chest-in-temple-bar/
Red_Wake wrote: » Nothing in the news about the burnt out house.
whisky_galore wrote: » http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/house-family-involved-mulhuddart-shooting-14038462
A source said: "The house belonged to one of the families alleged to be involved in the feud. It seems that the feud has continued."
splinter65 wrote: » Right on cue. Society is to blame. Not the person who pointed the gun in the direction of 2 children and pulled the trigger.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Not a fair comment. If the shooter turns out to have a bajillion previous convictions for violent crime, then it's the judiciary's fault for not locking him up permanently and the government's fault for not legislating to that effect.
AlekSmart wrote: » It is interesting to note the wording in that report... If this is accurate,then thankfully some degree of insurance may be in place to pay for the inevitable rebuilding of the structure. However,if the premises is in fact a Local Authority dwelling,then the (not inconsiderable ) cost will have to come from some part of the Authorities,already stretched,budget. Sadly,the destruction,by fire, of housing stock appars to be a common occurence across many similar locations,which is particularly difficult to both understand or excuse,given the very real homelessness crisis impacting on other,non-traveller,elements of society. If somebody can offer an explanation as to why this practice,is so widespread amongst this ethnic group then it then it may clarify at least some of the issue ?
January wrote: » The houses are owned by Fingal County Council. Traditionally travellers burn houses or caravans when someone has died in the property. This was an act of vengeance on the Donovan house by the other family.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » In fairness Patrick, theres only one person responsible for pointing a gun at another person with a baby in range and pulling the trigger.
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » It's one thing traditionally burning a caravan you own, another thing entirely burning a house owned by the taxpayer for your tradition.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I despise comments like this. A scumbag being a scumbag is scummy, but we as a society can do things to limit their opportunities for scumbaggery, and one of those things is making sure that when caught, they get buried alive by prison sentences and never get another opportunity to f*ck up someone's life. Admitting this is not absolving the shooter, but come on - if she does turn out to have previous convictions in the double or triple digits, then the successive judges who have sentenced these crimes in such a way that she was free to commit this latest offence have at least some of the victims' blood on their hands as well. If I board a DART openly brandishing a firearm and DART security just ignores me and doesn't call the Gardai even though they've seen me waving a gun around, and then I shoot somebody with it, yes I pulled the trigger and am a murderer but do the security people, as those responsible for ensuring the safety of others passengers, not share some of the responsibility for the victi's death? People in the justice system are supposed to be the guardians of society in the same way that DART security are the guardians of passenger safety, and in allowing these people the freedom to roam the streets and commit further crimes after repeated run ins with the law, they are derelict in their duty to society. And it's high time that we law abiding citizens started getting pissed off about that, and demanding that violent crime be punished far more severely than it is at present.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » and I "despise" the abdication of personal responsibility so prevalent today. "its always someone else's fault"... "its the gubberment's fault"..."although i pulled the trigger the dart man should have stopped me..." she chose to point a gun at someone. no one forced her. she pulled the trigger. she intended to kill someone, but instead shot a baby. there is no one else responsible for her action. however you seem to think society had some vicarious responsibility for her actions. what and how the judiciary punish/rehabilitate offenders is another argument, and i agree there are judicial failings, but surely holding people to account rather than looking to scapegoat, or mitigate their actions, or to blame system faults is surely where we need to start, first principle if you like.
end of the road wrote: » if she has previous convictions and is then out on the street, then society is responsible for allowing/enabling her. there is no abdication of personal responsibility, she is responsible for her crimes. however if someone is a known danger and the system does not deal with that danger, the system is responsible for that danger being a further danger.
AlekSmart wrote: » If somebody can offer an explanation as to why this practice,is so widespread amongst this ethnic group then it then it may clarify at least some of the issue ?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » What is a "known danger"? How do you lock a "known danger" up? For what? They might do something? Threaten someone? Sure, lock them up. For how long? When their sentance is served, are they still a "known danger", and if so why were they released? Are we to assume always dangerous? Do we assume offenders will reoffend? does that reconcile with your take on civil liberties? If "danger" is : "the possibility of suffering harm or injury. synonyms:peril, hazard, risk, jeopardy, endangerment, imperilment, insecurity" And risk a function of probability and harm, having regard to facts and statistics should we be locking all travellers up? Im not aware of any criminal record this alleged shooter person having. So did she become dangerous once she pulled the trigger or was she always? If the latter how do "we" stop it.Theres a fundamental lack of the respect of the rights of others at play in certain demographics, coupled with zero responsibility, and cultural norms. Enabled by people like you, not me. And when this culture shows its true colours, we get the usual handwringing, denial and deflection that society is at fault somehow. Theres an argument we dont punish hard enough or we dont rehabilitate well enough, but thats a different argument. FWIW, im all for more draconian punishment.
end of the road wrote: » burning a house is burning a house. whether we own it or the burner owns it isn't relevant, it's still burning a house, and the person responsible must be punished severely.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Jesus H. christ, are you for real ? If i decide to burn my house to the ground, should i be "severely punished"? Am i to assume someone will provide me with a replacement house? Do i fcuk. Tough tits Roger. If i deliberately burn your house, or a publicly owned/provided house, then yes i shoukd be lunished, but more importantly, there should end all and any future entitlements to me ever being provided a house again.But no, enabling fcukwits will rehouse them, because "culture" and "sure it was an accident boss" tldr: theres a massive difference.
J.pilkington wrote: » There you go, it’s everyone’s fault except travellers themselves...... let’s follow your advice and throw more money at them
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » What is a "known danger"? How do you lock a "known danger" up? For what? They might do something? Threaten someone? Sure, lock them up. For how long? When their sentance is served, are they still a "known danger", and if so why were they released? Are we to assume always dangerous? Do we assume offenders will reoffend? does that reconcile with your take on civil liberties? If "danger" is : "the possibility of suffering harm or injury. synonyms:peril, hazard, risk, jeopardy, endangerment, imperilment, insecurity" And risk a function of probability and harm, having regard to facts and statistics should we be locking all travellers up? Im not aware of any criminal record this alleged shooter person having. So did she become dangerous once she pulled the trigger or was she always? If the latter how do "we" stop it. Theres a fundamental lack of the respect of the rights of others at play in certain demographics, coupled with zero responsibility, and cultural norms. Enabled by people like you, not me. And when this culture shows its true colours, we get the usual handwringing, denial and deflection that society is at fault somehow. Theres an argument we dont punish hard enough or we dont rehabilitate well enough, but thats a different argument. FWIW, im all for more draconian punishment.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Jesus H. christ, are you for real? If i decide to burn my house to the ground, should i be "severely punished"? Am i to assume someone will provide me with a replacement house? Do i fcuk. Tough tits Roger. If i deliberately burn your house, or a publicly owned/provided house, then yes i should be punished, but more importantly, there should end all and any future entitlements to me ever being provided a house again. But no, enabling fcukwits will rehouse them, because "culture" and "sure it was an accident boss" tldr: theres a massive difference.
end of the road wrote: » of course you should be punished if you deliberately set your house on fire. it's a crime last time i checked. people being rehoused is nothing to do with these "enabling fcukwits" whoever they are, but the belief that people must receive a roof over their head, among other recognised and legitimate reasons.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » end of the road wrote: » of course you should be punished if you deliberately set your house on fire. it's a crime last time i checked. people being rehoused is nothing to do with these "enabling fcukwits" whoever they are, but the belief that people must receive a roof over their head, among other recognised and legitimate reasons. Are you saying they should be rehoused? Or not?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Are you saying they should be rehoused? Or not?
end of the road wrote: » if they burn the house down then they should be jailed. when they get out give them a shipping container.
end of the road wrote: » tusla don't have the resources to deal with children of people who can be here one minute and moved on the next. i'm sorry but that's the reality. the legislation existing applies to both traveler and settled children. mediation between groups isn't just for travelers.
Jamsiek wrote: » SO we should just bury our heads in the sand and let this continue?
Jamsiek wrote: » There needs to be a crackdown
Jamsiek wrote: » People like to talk about the lack of resources, what about during the boom? same thing then, nothing was done
end of the road wrote: » of course not, but if the government won't give the services the resources and funding they need then what can they do. they have to prioritize. on what though. chances are whatever it is, i agree, but the government won't pay for it. agreed. because the government didn't want to pay for it.
