Violent assualt on a pensioner and he gets a suspended sentence
I know they don't have the prison spaces but this is out of order
Strange, the message I get is that letting thugs walk free isn't always a positive outcome for society.
One assailant is not society.
Folks need to sit back and ask what if that was your 22 year old son who battered a 76 year old like he did, and your son’s excuse was that the old man called him names, but we shook hands and I just couldn’t stop myself following him, finding him and beating him up. Would you as a parent be excusing and defending it and trying to shift the blame onto the victim?
I can tell ya if my 22 year old son did this I’d be absolutely sickened. And no defending, blaming or justifying..
It doesn't matter if he won't offend again he should do at least some time for this.
Everyone who brutally attacks someone does it for the first time. This isn't going to persuade people otherwise.
A little bit of jail was needed here , if he dealt with him in the shop it would be OK but this was a premeditated attack
I imagine the lads father would have the full story not an extremely brief summary from the Sunday World.
On further reading it would appear they have history
The court heard that the elderly man had previously complained about the accused when he worked in a shop as a cashier.
Afterwards, Mr Kirby left that job.
Did the old codger pull the no no no I gave you a 20 not a 10 routine (well known scam) and get him fired from a previous job.
And then did he try and and do it again?
Not that any of that would excuse the extreme violence, but far more plausible than he is just became a dangerous lunatic because of "mean words".
He pleaded guilty, sounded pretty remorseful and he's working away. Exactly what good do you think jail would do?
Does jail do anyone good?
He is a much more serious offender than a lot of Deco's with 271 convictions.
A custodial sentence of 6 months would have been generous and reflective of no previous convictions.
Are you well.
I’d be annoyed about his stupidity but not “sickened”.
So the outrage is over the difference of what 3 or 4 months actual custody time?
Perfectly well thank you.
Maybe you shouldn't mix up what your father does with what others do.
I have literally no idea what you are talking about.
Please explain.
So you don't want people to use a brief summary from the Sunday World but you're quite happy to pull a theory out of your arse that an 'old codger' (or the victim in this case) tried to scam Kirby out of money. But you're not victim blaming.
A better theory is that Kirby is not and never has been a nice individual and the old man knew this. They got into conflict, and the scumbag came out in Kirby (even after he had plenty time) not to commit the scummy act.
no doubt Kirby and his defence hammed up this nonsense provocation story to try shift the blame onto the victim
He saw no better at home and presumes others are at it as well.
Not his fault.
It's in the Sunday World
Keith Spencer BL, defending, said Kirby claims the pensioner was trying to confuse him about change and that he called him “the 'c' word”.
It's a discussion forum, people are allowed have a differing opinion to you.
Or should every post just be "sure tis teddible Joe".
Again a strange personal dig at me?
Are you okay?
You seem upset over words.
Interesting.
Oh very clever, I see what you did there. Pity you have to resort to that nonsense, on ignore.
Do judges answer to no one? He's either incompetent or corrupted, is there any other possibility considering his history?
"Dealt with him in the shop"?
In what way?
Kick his teeth in?
Should shops not have sectioned off areas for inflicting brutality on customers, or do you maybe think teeth being kicked in is a good message to send other customers and their kids, to encourage them to conform to expectations?
It sounds like things were dealt with in the shop. Any further dealings would be no more acceptable than the attack in the street.
I don’t think the poster meant for Kirby to give the old man a kicking in the shop, at least I hope he doesn’t.
I think he meant to diffuse/settle the situation on the premises; which is what was said to have happened. Shook hands, cleared up and man went on his way. So, maybe poster did mean what you questioning… which, if true, is absolutely crazy
The scumbag will now use the excuse he's on unemployment benefits so he can only pay €5 pw for compensation
Well looking at the thread, nothing would surprise me.
I dealt with the public, If I attacked even one of the many downright nasty, contemptible pieces of garbage that were part of the great unwashed, I would fully expect to pay a very serious penalty.
Frankly I'm amazed that the action of the tillworker is being justified in any way shape or form.
We live in a far different world to that I grew up in,
How long before a few of the many gun owners on this small island decide to do what gun nuts do and start culling the public?
Will that be fine with the apologists also when a home grown Rittenhouse runs amok?
Thanks for attempting to explain to dipso above
What I meant was if the situation escalated in the shop and tempers were lost and thumps were given, one could easily explain that to a judge and apologise and all is good again.
By following the victim , planning and executing the attack is a higher level of crime
Yeah
You mean it's acceptable to lose control in a public place?
In my opinion a shop is worse than outside a pub at closing time, people expect to be safe in shops and not exposed to violence,
What you meant was that if it wasn't one sided in the shop, a brawl in fact, that was fine.
Do you think it should be part of the risk assessment then, how should the work instructions read for dealing with customers that use nasty, naughty words?
The point is that you are now modifying the situation to suit the position you have selected. Blows were not used by both parties and even if they were your stance is simply wrong.
No one should need training in self defence to work in a shop and if what you are saying is correct and acceptable which it most certainly isn't. then shop owners have a duty of care to provide the same level of training as they have to for "bouncers". Follow the logic and it will all become clear.
I am truly glad to have helped there.
I knew you would understand eventually.
You are talking through your hoop sir , I didn't say anything was fine , the attacker should count himself lucky he got s suspended sentence, I just pointed out following and attacking someone is different then a heated argument that turned violent
