Teenager and child shot in Dublin halting site

septictank · 14-12-2017 3:47pm

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/

It would appear he's not the only young gentleman from those parts that's handy with a knife, coincidence, hmmmm.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/young-mans-spleen-removed-in-emergency-surgery-following-vicious-stabbing-attack-in-temple-bar-court-hears-31349963.html

Red_Wake · 14-12-2017 5:52pm

Nothing in the news about the burnt out house.

whisky_galore · 14-12-2017 5:56pm

Red_Wake wrote: »

Nothing in the news about the burnt out house.

http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/house-family-involved-mulhuddart-shooting-14038462

AlekSmart · 14-12-2017 9:24pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/house-family-involved-mulhuddart-shooting-14038462

It is interesting to note the wording in that report...

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."

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 ?

hatrickpatrick · 14-12-2017 9:31pm

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.

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.

SEPT 23 1989 · 14-12-2017 9:33pm

Just remember when you look at you payslip this is what you pay for

Hoboo · 14-12-2017 9:34pm

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.

Locking 'her' up.

Roger Hassenforder · 14-12-2017 9:37pm

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.

In fairness Patrick, theres only one person responsible for pointing a gun at another person with a baby in range and pulling the trigger.

JP Liz V1 · 14-12-2017 11:47pm

Garda Michael Jones alleged that Mr Donovan’s family was involved in an ongoing feud with members of the Collins family over a “clandestine relationship between a man and a woman with an intellectual disability”.

Source IrishTimes

January · 15-12-2017 12:14am

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 ?

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.

Atlantic Dawn · 15-12-2017 12:19am

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.

It's one thing traditionally burning a caravan you own, another thing entirely burning a house owned by the taxpayer for your tradition.

hatrickpatrick · 15-12-2017 12:21am

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.

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.

January · 15-12-2017 12:31am

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.

Agree totally. It doesn't stop them doing it or at least trying to do it anyway. The sons of a woman who lived across from us tried to set the house on fire when she died. The council managed to successfully stop them doing it but they just burnt all her belongings on the green in front of the house instead.

end of the road · 15-12-2017 12:40am

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.

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 · 15-12-2017 12:52am

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.

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 · 15-12-2017 1:30am

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.

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.

J.pilkington · 15-12-2017 9:01am

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.

There you go, it’s everyone’s fault except travellers themselves...... let’s follow your advice and throw more money at them

Foxhound38 · 15-12-2017 10:18am

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 ?

Because the ones that tend to get in the papers a lot for the wrong reasons have no brains or respect for anyone or anything, quite simply.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-12-2017 10:39am

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.

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.

givyjoe · 15-12-2017 10:51am

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 that.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-12-2017 10:59am

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.

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.

PeterParker957 · 15-12-2017 11:05am

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.

+1

The radio and TV stations need stop feeding into this nonsense and broadcasting the "I want a house with a garden, and that one is too small" nonsense.

end of the road · 15-12-2017 3:22pm

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

if you believe it's everyone's fault bar travelers that's your opinion but it's not accurate.

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.

it's not enabled by me. i don't enable anything. i don't make the decisians in this country, the politicians do. the courts enforce the law.

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.

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 · 15-12-2017 4:15pm

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?

Red_Wake · 15-12-2017 4:58pm

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?

Mountjoy has a roof tbf.

end of the road · 15-12-2017 5:14pm

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Are you saying they should be rehoused?
Or not?

if they burn the house down then they should be jailed. when they get out give them a shipping container.

frag420 · 15-12-2017 6:23pm

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.

Where should they be shipped to?

Jamsiek · 15-12-2017 9:36pm

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.

SO we should just bury our heads in the sand and let this continue?
There needs to be a crackdown
People like to talk about the lack of resources, what about during the boom? same thing then, nothing was done

end of the road · 15-12-2017 10:02pm

Jamsiek wrote: »

SO we should just bury our heads in the sand and let this continue?

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.

Jamsiek wrote: »

There needs to be a crackdown

on what though. chances are whatever it is, i agree, but the government won't pay for it.

Jamsiek wrote: »

People like to talk about the lack of resources, what about during the boom? same thing then, nothing was done

agreed. because the government didn't want to pay for it.

Wheeliebin30 · 15-12-2017 11:13pm

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.

Government government government, always the governments fault with you isnt it?

You are everything left represents.

No personal responsibility and expect to be spoonfed from the cradle to the grave by someone other than yourself.

Teenager and child shot in Dublin halting site

Comments