Gangland Shootings part 4 - Read OP before posting

They've all been charged already, and the guards have called out word for word what the victim was threatened with so he obviously is cooperating. At the moment anyway.

The victim needing to "press chargers" is an American thing.

Dublin's Dundons

Is it known who was tortured or why?

We could probably link this thread with the immigration one after today's verdict

Incredible couple of weeks for the lad. Doing the family proud.

Court was chosen as jury trial was considered not appropriate/unsuitable.

A defense of "I was just having a meal in a restaurant" and acting in self defense will only stretch so far.

two lads come into a restuarant shooting and the people that overreacted according to the law - morally there was no overraction cos sherry and his pal came to kill - are the ones jailed for murder .

that ruling is a joke.

if it wasnt the Hennessy's involved but a family man who intervened in that very same situation , there would be no charge.

In America it might be second-degree murder, as there was no prior intent/pre-meditation or malice aforethought. So a lesser level of murder - though still liable to 30 year+ so not particularly a good result. We don't have any such levels, it's just murder or not murder.

The judges pretty much took apart the 'self-defence' aspect. Like from the initial reports on 24/12/23 it seemed a plausible defence, but when you start/continue stabbing someone who is already incapacitated it's not really self-defence. That there was cctv there didn't help their cause at all.

I guess it is a fair point that if it wasn't Hennessy & associates, but a nice family catching a rapist/burglar and butchering them in a rage and without cctv, then it could plausibly have a different outcome in front of a jury.

Shooting in Crumlin tonight.

apologies for the late reply.

you're not coming across badly . your opinion is fine. the interpretation of the law is wrong (imo of course)

the law is not infallible , you should never think it is. The SCC is very much skewed in favour of the state and isn't fair justice - not just my opinion but the opinion of quite a few legal and human rights orgs.

a jury of their peers may have had a different opinion than the 3 judges in this case.

You lads cheer cos you dislike the Hennessy's .

No. You are quite wrong on that. The law is clear. Had it been a case that a person jumped up to stop a gunman and stabbed him, and the gunman died from that stab wound, then that would be self defence.

But when a gunman becomes incapacitated and clearly no further danger to anyone, and a gang of lads continue to beat/stab him to death then that is murder the same as if the gunman got out of the building, was recognised by someone there, and ambushed the next week in a revenge attack.

If by "peers" you mean the other lads who were with them at the restaurant then you might have a point. If by "peers" you mean the general members of the public who would listen to, and understand, the various definitions in court, then no.

By all accounts the attack/beating went on a a good few minutes after the gunman was disarmed and clearly incapacitated. If there was only one person there present/attacking then they might have the more plausible excuse that they couldn't let the man come-to. But outnumbered and disarmed and lying incapacitated on the ground, that wouldn't be a runner.

😂😂 here we go ffs