Temple Bar Assaults

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 04-10-2004 09:52PM

If they were young wans name and shame their parents too.

don't you mean shock and awe?

The Muppet · 04-10-2004 10:04PM

secret_squirrel wrote:

You did read all the posts right??? This point was well covered and nobody who was there has anything to be ashamed of. (the witnesses I mean)

I did read the whole thread and I did not say the witnesses should be ashamed but my question is still a valid one. There is no mention of the perpetrators being armed so what were the 30 young able bodied witnesses afraid of. We are talking about a life here. I wasn't there but I would like to think if I were I would have done something more to help the poor victim.

Esel · 04-10-2004 10:18PM

The Muppet wrote:

How 30 people can stand by and watch 2 scumbags Kick another human being to near death is beyond me. WTF were they all afraid of ?

Maybe because they were afraid of being kicked 'to near death' also?

You have a good handle.

Tom Dunne · 04-10-2004 10:20PM

The Muppet wrote:

so what were the 30 young able bodied witnesses afraid of. We are talking about a life here. I wasn't there but I would like to think if I were I would have done something more to help the poor victim.

Muppet, put yourself in their situation. 30 people, widely dispersed watching nothing short of a deranged scum beating a fellow human into a lifeless pulp. That scumbag was capable of anything. People were probably shocked at what they saw, a sort of rabbits in the headlights effect.

I would love to think I would have bailed in there to try an rescue the poor unfortunate, but fear, shock, and probably self-preservation all combined together may have made these people just stand there.

I am sure it is a truly shocking situation to find yourself in.

mycroft · 04-10-2004 10:34PM

The Muppet wrote:

I did read the whole thread and I did not say the witnesses should be ashamed but my question is still a valid one. There is no mention of the perpetrators being armed so what were the 30 young able bodied witnesses afraid of. We are talking about a life here. I wasn't there but I would like to think if I were I would have done something more to help the poor victim.

Y'know it's incredibly easy to say "Well what I woulda done". You're posting on an internet forum it's safe to assume you're well educated (compared to most in this world), come from a safe normal enough background. Your attitude "I would like to think" Implies you have never been in this kind of situation but have thought about it and seem confident you would do the "right thing"

You don't know though. You've been drinking so you're not the most aware, it's wet and it's cold, you're with friends some of them girls, and suddenly violence explodes around you. Real actual not on Walker texas ranger blood and guts, adrenaline flows but also confusion, it's incredibly confusing, you've never encountered really random unexplained acts of extreme violence, it is genuinely bizarre and kind of surreal, you've seen it on tv, you're aware it goes on, but when it's there and theres blood and rain and pavements and screaming, you kind of react in mute disbelieve, you almost stop being there and start being a passive particapant in what goes on like it's happening to someone else or it's just like tv

You're right "you'd like to think" you'd do the right thing but in the circumstances you just don't knowwhat you'd do. So stop, the moral highground is giving you altitude sicknesss

nlgbbbblth · 04-10-2004 10:43PM

mycroft wrote:

Y'know it's incredibly easy to say "Well what I woulda done". You're posting on an internet forum it's safe to assume you're well educated (compared to most in this world), come from a safe normal enough background.

what's so wrong about being well-educated and coming from a "safe normal background".

such things are nothing to be ashamed of. So why make an issue of them?
maybe you wish to imply that lack of education and coming for a dysfunctional background provide some form of justification for what the 27 year old from Ballyfermot did last night

mycroft wrote:

So stop, the moral highground is giving you altitude sicknesss

seeing as we're speaking of moral highground go back and read your full post again.

mycroft · 04-10-2004 11:00PM

nlgbbbblth wrote:

what's so wrong about being well-educated and coming from a "safe normal background".

such things are nothing to be ashamed of. So why make an issue of them?
maybe you wish to imply that lack of education and coming for a dysfunctional background provide some form of justification for what the 27 year old from Ballyfermot did last night

:rolleyes:

OFFS

Theres nothing wrong with growing up like that, I did, and nor was I defending the behaviour of the scumbag. I was refering to the fact that by the sounds of it the muppet comes from a nice normal background and therefore doesn't have any real experience with real vicious violence,and therefore he was ill equiped to speak about how he'd react when confronted by it, and therefore he should quit holding judgement over someone who behaved like most of us would.

were exactly do I defend the behaviour of the scumbag, I simply ask the muppet to get off his high horse.

Please actually read what I wrote.....

ionapaul · 04-10-2004 11:03PM

nlgbbbblth wrote:

what's so wrong about being well-educated and coming from a "safe normal background".

Seems like a case for the 'criminal is the real victim' crowd, Ivana Bacik and the rest of the brigade. Don't you know that because of the oppression visited upon these unfortunates by society, violence is the only form of self-expression possible? Blah blah blah...

There have been many studies on how strangers react to public violence. The more violent the action, the less likely people will intervene. There is a famous case of a screaming naked women running down Manhatten streets followed by a man with a gun or knife or chainsaw or something, and no-one intervening. I very much doubt anyone reading this thread would have intervened alone, or without a much larger group of close friends. To do so would have been too much of a risk.

The public cannot and should not be relied upon to deal with this. We need more police, better trained and equipped, and ready to deal harshly with such violent actions. I was literally sickened and shocked today to see a hard drug deal taking place on Thomas Street as I walked past the dealer and his junkies. The same group are there all day long, behind the bus shelter near Vicar Street. This was during lunchtime. Always knew the lads were drugdealers, but I actually saw the plastic vial being exchanged today. Sickening.

The Muppet · 04-10-2004 11:20PM

mycroft wrote:

You're right "you'd like to think" you'd do the right thing but in the circumstances you just don't knowwhat you'd do. So stop, the moral highground is giving you altitude sicknesss

Dont be so condescending . I am not trying to take the High Moral ground if there is any to take in this instance. After reading this thread I dont believe the crowd did enough to help that is my opinion and I would be surprised if I was alone in that.

I can not be 100% sure how I would have reacted as I wasn,t there that is why I said " I would Like to think". I am in my own mind positive I would have intervened given the threat and situation as explained here.

God forbid if it were your Son being kicked to within inches of his life on the ground with 30 people looking on you may also be taking the same "High Moral Ground".

.

ionapaul · 04-10-2004 11:31PM

Ahh, if it was your son no doubt you would intervene (he shares so much of your DNA and thus ensures your evolutionary success if he lives and reproduces) but a complete stranger? Very different story. We can't and shouldn't judge those people, I am fully confident most of us would have acted the same way. Which is why we need more gardai, better trained and armed, available to put a halt to this violence.

mycroft · 04-10-2004 11:54PM

The Muppet wrote:

Dont be so condescending . I am not trying to take the High Moral ground if there is any to take in this instance. After reading this thread I dont believe the crowd did enough to help that is my opinion and I would be surprised if I was alone in that.

I can not be 100% sure how I would have reacted as I wasn,t there that is why I said " I would Like to think". I am in my own mind positive I would have intervened given the threat and situation as explained here.

God forbid if it were your Son being kicked to within inches of his life on the ground with 30 people looking on you may also be taking the same "High Moral Ground".

.

Oh pluze, you're on one being condescending, with your "i would like to thik" You've never been in these circumstances so you're ill equiped to lecture Sean on this behaviour.

What sean saw and what those people saw was traumatic, and your "god forbid if it was your son" attitude isn't helping anyone get over the trauma nor help the people injured.

milltown · 05-10-2004 01:22AM

The Muppet wrote:

I did read the whole thread and I did not say the witnesses should be ashamed but my question is still a valid one. There is no mention of the perpetrators being armed so what were the 30 young able bodied witnesses afraid of. We are talking about a life here. I wasn't there but I would like to think if I were I would have done something more to help the poor victim.

I don't think the words "able bodied" would ever be used to describe me at that hour in Temple bar. It was a shocking event and it made my blood run cold reading about it. I was in town last night and was on my way to Temple bar but we ended up staying around Grafton st. as luck would have it.

We would all LIKE to think we would weigh in and help out. The fact is that Seán and the others did what they were trained and qualified to do, that is they pestered the Gardai into leaving the nice warm station and popping out to see what all the fuss was about.

I would also be very interested to know how many Gardai are on foot patrol around the city centre on a Sunday night. My guess would be no more than 3 or 4 from each station. There certainly seems to be enough of the hungry hoors up for a bit of overtime when there's a concert or a football match on, or a minister for fizzy drinks visiting from Elbonia needing a 6 car and 4 bike escort from Dáil Eireann to the K club.

zt · 05-10-2004 05:59AM

mycroft

I never tried to pass my self off as a legal type. I simply asked had anybody considered the legal implications of publishing this type of information on the Internet.

I know newspapers have guidelines for reporting prior and during a court case. I would openly admit that I don't know what these guidelines are, but I would suggest that few posters would? Given that you are our resident legal expert maybe you can tell us what types of comments or statements would cause problems?

As I can see from your articulate posting you obviously have a superior knowledge of the legal system. However, I do know the difference between "legal president" and "legal precedence". Didn't Dana want to be "legal president"?

mycroft wrote:

You havent' a f*cking clue how our legal system works and instead just wanted to show off your half assed knowledge on some technical point that has still no legal president. in short SHUT THE HELL UP.

The Muppet · 05-10-2004 08:47AM

mycroft wrote:

Oh pluze, you're on one being condescending, with your "i would like to thik" You've never been in these circumstances so you're ill equiped to lecture Sean on this behaviour.

What sean saw and what those people saw was traumatic, and your "god forbid if it was your son" attitude isn't helping anyone get over the trauma nor help the people injured.

You know nothing of me or my life experiences so stop being so condescending . I am not lecturing anyone. In fact I have made Sean aware of where I am coming from and took steps earlier to assure him I was not taking a shot at him.

I assume Seans reason for posting was to get opinions . I didn't realise we are all supposed to have a uniform opinion here. I have given my mine which differs from yours I can deal with that. you should do likewise.

I'll leave it at that as we are starting to go round in circles

mycroft · 05-10-2004 01:33PM

zt wrote:

mycroft

I never tried to pass my self off as a legal type. I simply asked had anybody considered the legal implications of publishing this type of information on the Internet.

I know newspapers have guidelines for reporting prior and during a court case. I would openly admit that I don't know what these guidelines are, but I would suggest that few posters would? Given that you are our resident legal expert maybe you can tell us what types of comments or statements would cause problems?

As I can see from your articulate posting you obviously have a superior knowledge of the legal system. However, I do know the difference between "legal president" and "legal precedence". Didn't Dana want to be "legal president"?

For starts slagging off spelling is one of the lowest forms of wit on the internet.

1. YOU refered to the original post as a sworn statement, not I, implying that you had some knowledge of the legality, and furthermore You suggested that this could lead to a mistrial. If you don't have a clue about this matters stop weighing into the debate, and stop offering your opinion as someone who does. You posted in such a manner to make sean concerned about whether he should remove his first post.

Secondly I have more than a passing pratical knowledge of this kind of matter. While during a trial the media suffer under strict guidelines over what they can report, the recent example of the primetime special on garda brutality forced the trial dates to be changed on several gardai charged under the reclaim the streets protest, despite the trials being weeks away. Witness some of the press re the infamous Katherine Nevin trial. It's impossible to control what a jury has seen before a trial which is why jurors excuse themselves during the selection process if they feel they have awareness of the matter which may effect their judgement. During a trial as you know, the jury are instructed not read the papers or watch the news. It's impossible to inforce without sequistering your jury a costly and rare act. The justice system hinges on the honesty of the jury.

But getting back on point, the defence would need to show that sean's comments having been read by a large porportion of society, and furthermore would unfairly bias or effect the judgement of other witnesses or jury. I'd really like to see that happening! Because is that was the case every caller on live line would have be censored if they spoke on any matter relating to a case.

However. It is utterly murky the legality of the internet and internet comments. For example the recent case of a police officer involved in the Ian Huntly case, was accused of having child porn on his computer the charge was dropped because the the crown could not prove he was the only person with access to the laptop. Similarily the defence in your la la land world would need to prove not only sean's idenity, that sean was the only person able to access this site from his computer, and THEN prove that Sean's statement had predjuced the jury or another witnesses.

You know nothing of me or my life experiences so stop being so condescending . I am not lecturing anyone. In fact I have made Sean aware of where I am coming from and took steps earlier to assure him I was not taking a shot at him.

Yes yes you chewed broken glass for breakfast and kick jean claude van dammes ass every day before school.

I stand over my previous posts.

Dathai · 05-10-2004 01:50PM

The funny thing is that no matter how much you say you are disgusted on this subject and what you would do to the scumbags, the truth is not a single one of ye would do anything to them when it came down to it.

Ph3n0m · 05-10-2004 02:23PM

Dathai wrote:

The funny thing is that no matter how much you say you are disgusted on this subject and what you would do to the scumbags, the truth is not a single one of ye would do anything to them when it came down to it.

For some people that would be the truth and for others it would not be.

In the past I have, on occasion, intervened in street fights between people I did not know at all - however in recent times, I have tended to avoid such incidents, as its all too easy for a weapon to be produced and me to hit the ground, then my family would have lost me for no reason at all. Does that make me a coward or indifferent - no, just concerned about my own welfare

Kêrmêttê · 05-10-2004 02:33PM

I just read the article in today's (05.10.04) Evening Herald on page 4.
It appears to be a fairly balanced report and is mostly "Dave's" recount of what happened.
I wonder do reporters twist things or is this article printed as it was given in the first place?

Fair play for mentioning the Gardaís bumbling and farting about when the call was first put through to them. I've had reason to call for them on a few occasions in the last 3 years and they NEVER turn up.
It's time the donut eating fatsos got a poke in their rather ample behinds.

b3t4 · 05-10-2004 02:37PM

I am shocked and appalled. I found Sean's post disturbing and distressing. My best wishes go out to the victims.

From reading all the posts (and I did) a lot of people seem to think that someone should of done something. They did, they rang the police who are trained to deal with these things. It's a huge shame the police weren't around in the first place to prevent such an incident.

My thoughts were that if people were to carry around those panic buttons. Would such a noise have distracted this "scumbag" long enough for someone to intervene effectly or scare the sh!t off? One half none violent approach. Just my thoughts.

A.

ionapaul · 05-10-2004 02:44PM

Dathai wrote:

The funny thing is that no matter how much you say you are disgusted on this subject and what you would do to the scumbags, the truth is not a single one of ye would do anything to them when it came down to it.

Incorrect. If I had a method to eliminate (with extreme prejudice!) the perps without placing myself at risk, I would have done so gladly. As that is not possible in our state, I would gladly and enthuisiasticly back / vote in any measure granting the gardai more personnel, greater funding, heavier weapons, etc, to tackle this sort of behaviour.

However in today's world even if the Gardai had the wherewithall to put an immediate halt to this sort of behaviour via the most effective method (state-sanctioned use of force), there would be an immediate cry of 'police brutality' from the usual suspects and another few million of taxpayers money would be wasted on an endless tribunal.

Redleslie2 · 05-10-2004 03:50PM

ionapaul wrote:

Incorrect. If I had a method to eliminate (with extreme prejudice!) the perps without placing myself at risk, I would have done so gladly.

When you arrive on the scene as it were (with your flaming sword of justice) how would you know that the guy on the ground taking the beating is not actually the 'baddie' to begin with. I've come across several incidents like that.

Canis Lupus · 05-10-2004 04:15PM

lol.... i wish i had a shining sword of justice....

_blank_ · 05-10-2004 04:26PM

So, I just got a phone call from the Gardai in Pearse St.

They want me to head in tomorrow morning to give my full statement.

I can't wait to tell them every little detail of what I saw them scumbags do, maybe help to put them away for a long time.

Another thing, to all the people saying they would have jumped in, I say to you, you simply were not there. I was. I saw the look in these guys eyes. They were waiting for people to approach them so they could claim another victim, they were inviting people on to them.

When it first all started, there was an initial reaction sure, some people tried to help, but we know what happened to them. There were people scattered around the place. It would have taken more than one person to approach these people to try and make them stop. I was seperated from my friends, and the people near me were not standing in groups, we were a group of thirty, sure, but a random, fractured group. I didn't know in the first few minutes who was who. I could have asked the bloke standing eight feet from me to join me and try to tackle the scumbags, but I didn't know if he was in fact their cohort.

Add to this the shock everyone was feeling. Sure, we've all probably seen street fights at one stage or another, but this was not a street fight, it was a vicious beating the likes of which I have never seen.

Have you seen American History X? Not a patch on this.

When you encounter something like this, all rational thought goes out the window.

To anyone who wasn't there, please don't preach to me about not trying to help these unfortunate victims. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid that if I did approach these scumbags, then I'd end up on the ground with my body being used as a dancefloor. I did what I could, I rang the Emergency Services three times.

When I felt it was safe to do so, when I felt I had adequate support, I did approach these scumbags, but with a group. Then the Guards arrived anyway, but we didn't know how long it wuld have taken them. We were preparing to tackle them, we just didn't get the chance.

When one of the scumbags broke free from the Guards cluthces, we gave chase, I and two others actually outran the Guards in this pursuit.

Until you encounter something like this, don't presume that you will act entirely rationally, because I promise you, you will not.

This incident has impacted on my life in different ways, but for people to come along and tell me I should have jumped in is the least of my worries. I don't care what you say I should have done. My conscious is clear. I did all I could given the viciousness I witnessed, once I got over the initial shock, which probably lasted three to four minutes, and once a coherent group of people was formed, I was willing to try and intervene. Only my complete horror stopped me from doing so earlier, and I make no apologies for that.

ferdi · 05-10-2004 04:38PM

write down everything you can remember right now, every detail, just so your sure your giving the cops all the info you can so that hopfully these scumbags can get sent down for a good long stretch.

as for helping and hopping in on these lads, what i said in my previous post was that i would like to think i would have organised the 30 by-standers to attack the 2 scumbags (for which i got neg rep and abusive comments). i know when your there and the **** is hitting the fan right before your eyes, its alot different. Any ways, i can only commend you for the steps your taking now to help ensure those pricks get their asses nailed to the wall.

peace.

passive · 05-10-2004 06:47PM

so you changed your mind about giving the herald your story? reading it here... they seem to have stuck perfectly to your account of it anyway

Tiriel · 05-10-2004 07:01PM

nobody can say you didn't do your best. those kind of people are just wild and you jumping in would only have ended badly. calling emergency services was brilliant.. that is what was needed.. get the culprits behind bars.

_blank_ · 05-10-2004 07:07PM

passive wrote:

so you changed your mind about giving the herald your story? reading it here... they seem to have stuck perfectly to your account of it anyway

I have to say, I will never buy a copy of this rag again.

The journalist in question, AnnMarie Walsh, spoke to me twice yesterday.

On the first occasion she told me she read the account, and could she use it, I told her to wait until she heard from me, as I wanted to make a joint decision among my friends who were present as to wether we would actually speak to them or not.

She agreed with this. Five minutes later she rang me back, asking for my surname, I told her no, I won't give that to her. She wanted me to meet her late last night, about 10.30ish to get a picture with my friends she could print.

I conferred with my friends, and we decided not to talk to the papers until we had at least given full statements to the Guards.

I didn't get back to her at all.

At 11.05 she got back to me, in a text message, asking me to comment again, and clarify some points in the piece she stole from me.

I didn't get back.

I never agreed for her to use my story in any shape or form.

She didn't use my real name in the piece in her rag.

adjodlo · 05-10-2004 07:31PM

If she didn't use you name then why object to here using your story that you've already posted online for the public to read?

I think what happened is more important.

HelterSkelter · 05-10-2004 08:04PM

Sean, first of all, fair play to you for going ahead and making the statement to the cops. I hope these scumbags get locked up for a long time. Make sure you write down everything you saw now as you'll be surprised how much you will forget or become hazy on even within a week or two. It could take a long time for this to come to trial. Also remember that a lot of the other witnesses could have been fairly drunk on the night and might not be able to give as accurate account as you and your friends can.

And I think it would be a very bad idea to give your name to any paper, or allow them take a photo of you. You don't want the scumbags or their family to find out anything about you.

ionapaul · 05-10-2004 08:23PM

Redleslie2 wrote:

When you arrive on the scene as it were (with your flaming sword of justice) how would you know that the guy on the ground taking the beating is not actually the 'baddie' to begin with. I've come across several incidents like that.

Hmm, that would be quite a conundrum, wouldn't it? Wouldn't know where to stick my 'flaming sword of justice' in that case...got any suggestions?

Can't paint the criminal as a criminal, right? He's the oppressed one and the guy on the ground getting kicked into the coma is the real criminal, right? Maybe I'm mis-reading your post, of course...

Temple Bar Assaults

Comments