Joe Joyce Jr V Martin O Donnell.

El_Bee · 28-01-2019 11:50AM

tayto lover wrote: »

You were already told in this thread that the fight was on privately owned land so there was nothing they could do about it. .

Yeah and I already said that the acceptance and celebration of crime and criminal behaviour is why the country is they way it is.

tayto lover · 28-01-2019 11:55AM

El_Bee wrote: »

Yeah and I already said that the acceptance and celebration of crime and criminal behaviour is why the country is they way it is.

I wasn’t aware that having an arranged fight on private land was a crime.
Maybe you could point out how it was?

El_Bee · 28-01-2019 12:02PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I wasn’t aware that having an arranged fight on private land was a crime.
Maybe you could point out how it was?

I'm not a legal expert, we can play word games and guess the crime all day long but aggravated assault for one, and lets not pretend this "solves feuds", that's up there with "ah sure it's their culture isn't it".

tayto lover · 28-01-2019 12:05PM

El_Bee wrote: »

I'm not a legal expert, we can play word games and guess the crime all day long but aggravated assault for one, and lets not pretend this "solves feuds", that's up there with "ah sure it's their culture isn't it".

I don’t like Travellers and don’t like their fighting BUT there is nothing that can be done about an arranged fight on private land when both fighters agree.

Do you want the Garda to break the law?

PARlance · 28-01-2019 12:12PM

El_Bee wrote: »

I'm not a legal expert, we can play word games and guess the crime all day long but aggravated assault for one, and lets not pretend this "solves feuds", that's up there with "ah sure it's their culture isn't it".

I don't think you need to be a legal expert to see that the took they right course of action yesterday. Gardaí bashing may be a hobby for some, but it's not justified in this thread.

Gravelly · 28-01-2019 12:15PM

That was more like a walking slowly backwards competition than a fight. If this was a display of the best of traveller manhood, tis no wonder none of them can manage an honest days work.

padd b1975 · 28-01-2019 12:25PM

sabat wrote: »

If there really was a 200k purse for the winner would that not make these guys Ireland's highest paid domestic sports stars? Maybe some of the rugby internationals would get a similar amount annually...

It's about the equivalent of 400,000 to someone who's tax compliant.

RobbieMD · 28-01-2019 12:30PM

El_Bee wrote: »

I'm not a legal expert, we can play word games and guess the crime all day long but aggravated assault for one, and lets not pretend this "solves feuds", that's up there with "ah sure it's their culture isn't it".

If this was aggravated assault, and the Gardai could arrest them, then surely they should arrest every boxer at the National stadium too?

In reality there is no offence in Irish statute of aggravated assault. For the offence of assault a person is only guilty of assault if the other person does not consent to being assaulted. I’m fairly sure they both consented to being assaulted here.

tayto lover · 28-01-2019 12:35PM

Ive seen a few of these fights online. I wasn’t impressed.
Two usually overweight lads throwing the odd ineffective punch and both referees intervening a lot. Not a lot of skill in any I saw.
The call out videos were scarier.

Are there any good fights I could view lads?

normanoffside · 28-01-2019 12:37PM

I saw a comment one one of the Traveller video sharing pages hypothesising that Joe didn’t perform well because he was overtrained.

normanoffside · 28-01-2019 12:39PM

Gravelly wrote: »

That was more like a walking slowly backwards competition than a fight.

It was a world class display of defensive boxing. One for the purists. Reminded me of Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

Gravelly · 28-01-2019 12:41PM

normanoffside wrote: »

It was a world class display of defensive boxing. One for the purists. Reminded me of Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

If Mayweather gained 16 stone, wore a camel hair shirt and a blindfold, and Pacquiao went on a 12-month fast food binge and developed mad cow disease.

VeryTerry · 28-01-2019 12:44PM

Hector Savage wrote: »

wow, and here was me thinking Djokovic Nadal was the big event of Jan 27 .... :rolleyes:

Tennis is for Protestants.

blade1 · 28-01-2019 12:45PM

normanoffside wrote: »

I saw a comment one one of the Traveller video sharing pages hypothesising that Joe didn’t perform well because he was overtrained.

Yeah,they told him lay off the missus during training.

Andrew00 · 28-01-2019 12:49PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Ive seen a few of these fights online. I wasn’t impressed.
Two usually overweight lads throwing the odd ineffective punch and both referees intervening a lot. Not a lot of skill in any I saw.
The call out videos were scarier.

Are there any good fights I could view lads?

https://youtu.be/_5clCh-9t3s

Feisar · 28-01-2019 12:50PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

If this was aggravated assault, and the Gardai could arrest them, then surely they should arrest every boxer at the National stadium too?

In reality there is no offence in Irish statute of aggravated assault. For the offence of assault a person is only guilty of assault if the other person does not consent to being assaulted. I’m fairly sure they both consented to being assaulted here.

There's sanctioned boxing and then there's this crap.

I thought unauthorised fighting was illegal?

Gravelly · 28-01-2019 12:50PM

Andrew00 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/_5clCh-9t3s

Whoever uploaded that needs a kicking.

demanufactured · 28-01-2019 01:02PM

Boxers they are not.

Neanderthals they are.

Sephiroth_dude · 28-01-2019 01:03PM

tayto lover wrote: »

The call out videos were scarier.

Grown men making video's calling each other out like the bunch of gowl's that they are, jesus wept.

ohnonotgmail · 28-01-2019 01:05PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

If this was aggravated assault, and the Gardai could arrest them, then surely they should arrest every boxer at the National stadium too?

In reality there is no offence in Irish statute of aggravated assault. For the offence of assault a person is only guilty of assault if the other person does not consent to being assaulted. I’m fairly sure they both consented to being assaulted here.

From a reading of the act the mention of consent is restricted to Section 1(b). there is no mention of consent in Section 1(a) so i dont think what you say about it not being assault is correct. Section 2(c) might give them an out if you assume that bating the head off each other is " generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life" for the people involved.

Assault.
2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

Ush1 · 28-01-2019 01:24PM

That was woeful.

How seriously do they take these fights? Don't think I've seen any where either fighter looks in any sort of decent shape.

Naos · 28-01-2019 01:34PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

From a reading of the act the mention of consent is restricted to Section 1(b). there is no mention of consent in Section 1(a) so i dont think what you say about it not being assault is correct. Section 2(c) might give them an out if you assume that bating the head off each other is " generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life" for the people involved.

How exactly do you think sparring goes down in boxing gyms?

What about a game of hurling? Surely if someone hits me with a weapon (hurl), that's assault?
Or rugby - what if someone tackles me and I fall and hurt myself. Assault.

normanoffside · 28-01-2019 01:39PM

It couldn’t possibly be assault as no punches were landed and barely any were even thrown.

Gravelly · 28-01-2019 01:43PM

normanoffside wrote: »

It couldn’t possibly be assault as no punches were landed and barely any were even thrown.

Could possibly be an unwanted sexual advance with all the hugging that went on.

Is there a crime associated with the flagrant display of unnatural amounts of back hair?

Ultimate Seduction · 28-01-2019 02:00PM

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Not true in fairness.

Our very best boxers are/were not travellers.

They do very well up to a point but I'm still waiting for someone to show me a traveller who can dig their heels in when the going gets tough.

Another thing (folk who have boxed only can answer) why can none take a body shot?

Tyson Fury?

Red_Wake · 28-01-2019 02:32PM

Anyone got any good videos.

RobbieMD · 28-01-2019 03:10PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

From a reading of the act the mention of consent is restricted to Section 1(b). there is no mention of consent in Section 1(a) so i dont think what you say about it not being assault is correct. Section 2(c) might give them an out if you assume that bating the head off each other is " generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life" for the people involved.

From my reading of it the “without the consent of the other” applies to both section 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b).
I know the word Or is used but I read this to mean that consent applies to either/or subsection A and B, as both are followed with the “without the consent of the other” before the subsection finishes and force is defined.

I believe section 2(c) is used to cover the type of behaviour that in other life may constitute assault. The example used in college being the jostling in a crowd that ought reasonably be expected at a football match or whatever.

ohnonotgmail · 28-01-2019 04:08PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

From my reading of it the “without the consent of the other” applies to both section 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b).
I know the word Or is used but I read this to mean that consent applies to either/or subsection A and B, as both are followed with the “without the consent of the other” before the subsection finishes and force is defined.

I believe section 2(c) is used to cover the type of behaviour that in other life may constitute assault. The example used in college being the jostling in a crowd that ought reasonably be expected at a football match or whatever.

It is very possible you are correct. I have opened a thread on the legal discussion forum about this so as not to sidetrack this thread.

BattleCorp · 28-01-2019 04:26PM

What a fcuking disappointment.

Sh1te in a bucket is what that fight was.

demanufactured · 29-01-2019 03:20PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

What a fcuking disappointment.

Sh1te in a bucket is what that fight was.

Ya big robot ya.

Joe Joyce Jr V Martin O Donnell.

Comments