nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Actor gets two years after stun gun 'sting'

ronbyrne2005

Friday December 12 2008

An actor who imported 10 stun guns to see "if there would be a market for them here" has been jailed for two years at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

Robert Scales (37) of Waterloo road, Dublin 4, said he did not know the weapons were illegal here when he imported them from Thailand and that he intended to sell them to taxi drivers.

He pleaded guilty to possession of firearms at his home on November 14, 2007.

The court heard that a customs and excise officer noticed a suspicious package at a sorting office addressed to Scales. A operation was set up where a customs officer, dressed as a postman, delivered the box to Scales, who claimed ownership.

A short time later gardai entered the house and seized the guns.

Defence counsel, Mr Pieter Le Vert, said his client was "a highly educated and intelligent man" who has appeared in several films, such as 'King Arthur' and 'Braveheart'.

Judge Katherine Delahunt refused a application to suspend some of the sentence and said if it was not for the mitigation plea, the term would have been four years.

Two years for this seems a bit severe condsidering what sentences murderers and rapists get. Good to see the police are getting the real criminals.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jesus1222

Sentence is way over the top. You wouldn't get more for child pornography or
that and even some cases of abuse and rape wouldn't get 4 years.

I know someone who received an extremely harsh sentence from that judge (not child pornography) one time, the sentence was cut by more than a half on appeal.

I don't agree with average Joe's being allowed own stun guns either, they're dangerous and only in serious circumstances should anyone
ever consider using one, unfortunately minor agreements or scuffles will result in their use by the likes of taxi drivers who would buy them
in the fist place.

It wasn't me!

I can't honestly understand people claiming the sentence is too harsh. It's a firearms offence and should be treated seriously. At a time when the government is making a desperate (and pitiful) attempt to curb violence on the streets, mostly by useless and watery legislation, when a positive move is finally made, people bemoan it? That's ridiculous in my opinion.

r3nu4l

Morlar wrote: »

Hilarious that on the same day that guy got 2 years for importing stun guns (to sell to taxi drivers for protection) this guy here got a suspended sentence :

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/1211/ireland/mhsnaukfaukf/

A youth who was found guilty of taking part in a violent mugging has been given a six-month suspended sentence by Judge Bryan Smyth at the Dublin Children’s Court.

&

This one got 5 months for a different offence :

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/1211/ireland/mhsnaukfcwsn/

A youth convicted of attacking a garda whom he tried to push him off a third-floor flat complex balcony has been given a five-months detention sentence.

Ah but you see, unlike the guy in the OP, these youths weren't 'well-educated' and we can't be seen to get tough on people from deprived areas just because they actually commit violent crime now can we?

The system really is a joke

KilOit

Seen the story in Herald AM today and right accross from it some scumbag steels a jeep drives down the m50 the wrong way and rams a Garda car, crashes then trys to escape on foot he got 3 years.

Morlar

r3nu4l wrote: »

Ah but you see, unlike the guy in the OP, these youths weren't 'well-educated' and we can't be seen to get tough on people from deprived areas just because they actually commit violent crime now can we?

The system really is a joke

Yep - if you want to get a lighter sentence here's how its done :

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/1211/ireland/mhsnaukfcwsn/
(Trying to push a guard off a 3rd floor balcony one)

"The teen already had seven previous convictions for criminal damage, theft, burglary and handling stolen property.

Defence counsel Ms O’Sullivan had said her client was out of school but hoped to begin a training course and had problems controlling his anger. She said the teenager, who was accompanied by his father, was seeking a further opportunity to co-operate with the Probation Service.

Judge Smyth considered the incident “a serious matter” adding that detention had to be a “last resort”.

In sentencing him, he noted that a probation report, which referred to a previous assault incident, was not “wholly positive” and added, “I know he has been in and out of here [court] a few times since”."

rubadub

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's a firearm, classed as a prohibited weapon. I'm absolutely delighted to see someone get rode for possession of an unlicensed firearm.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I can't honestly understand people claiming the sentence is too harsh. It's a firearms offence and should be treated seriously.

Because most people would not, in their own minds, class it as the same as a gun. Never mind the pedantic legalistic definition. My father violently assaulted me, i.e. slapped me when I was a kid, just tell it like it is. If somebody says the word "firearm" I don't think stunguns spring to anybodys mind.

The_Minister wrote: »

And, btw, those weapons can kill, so the Gardaí just jailed someone for illegally importing semi-lethal weapons.
He is a real criminal.

I can buy a whole array of semi-lethal weapons in woodies, only real difference here is it only has one use so they can do you for it. If I walk down grafton street with a hunting knife I would be done, BUT stick it in a Debenhams bag and paint a few tomatoes and onions on the handle and suddenly it is a perfectly acceptable kitchen knife.

2 years is way too harsh, I hate to see my tax money spent housing people like this when other weaponry is so easily available, which would have far more chance of being lethal is used in self defence by taximen. I never knew they were illegal, thought it was a grey area.

Nodin

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I can't honestly understand people claiming the sentence is too harsh.

......in relation to other offences, particularily involving those with a criminal record and violence against persons. A massive fine and probation should suffice. just because "firearms" are the buzz words of the media at the moment is no reason to lynch the first eejit to hand. If somebody has to be strung up, string up the outlaws, not some poxy cowboy.

Somebody linked with FF there a while back was caught with a CS emitting weapon and was given a non-custodial sentence and a fine. He had it as a souvenir on his desk and thought there was no harm in it. That was the proper sentence. Here, though theres more items involved, I think the same course should have been followed.

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

I can't say that I would be overly happy knowing that there were 10 taxi drivers going around with stun guns under their seats.

I know drivers that carry these. Others I know carry other items.
Never bothered me all these years. They know me - I trust them. Don't see a problem to be honest in them having them as a form of self-defence.
I'm not going to rob/attack them so I have little to worry about.

Now I know that because these things are available that others other there will use these items for bad use.
Its an awkward situation and I can see both sides of the argument.

I'm just sticking up for taxi drivers in the meanwhile.
Ordinary decent passengers have nothing to worry about.

seamus

Biggins wrote: »

I'm just sticking up for taxi drivers in the meanwhile.
Ordinary decent passengers have nothing to worry about.

As I replied to Terry, it's nothing against taxi drivers. I'd be no more happy if truckers or salesmen or bankers were carrying these as they went about their business.

But that taxi drivers by and large deal with more troublesome members of the public than most other professions, that puts more people at risk from illegally-held weapons.

DonJose

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

A operation was set up where a customs officer, dressed as a postman, delivered the box to Scales, who claimed ownership.

Feckin eejit, if he'd looked down the road he would have seen the Customs van.

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

As I replied to Terry, it's nothing against taxi drivers. I'd be no more happy if truckers or salesmen or bankers were carrying these as they went about their business.

But that taxi drivers by and large deal with more troublesome members of the public than most other professions, that puts more people at risk from illegally-held weapons.

O' same here, totally agree.
As the mention of drivers came up, it's just a shame that they have been forced to take these measures.

As for the two years jail time, I don't consider that extreme.
One of the weapons he sold alone, could have been used to rob drivers, etc.
I'd dread to think about the female aspect alone with these things!

Fair play to the judge for talking a strong stance. I only wish more would do the same for other crimes.

Turd Ferguson

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes yes yes, but did he appear in the short Shapespearian tragedy otherwise known as "The Scottish Play"

You mean Macbeth?

/runs from banhammer

asdasd

doing a google search for stun guns I see them listed on the same sites selling tasers, pepper sprays, and so on. So not the favourite toy of the 'hood, or the sophisticated drug dealing Mafiosi. They probably have real guns. Those boyos probably import their guns via small boats, or private planes, or some poor mule who owes them a favour. Custom officers are not all that successful in stopping this.

What the criminal classes do not do is send away for a package which the vigilant custom officer can intercept because it says Ten Stun Guns Inside - Be Careful. As it comes from a country where, no doubt, stun guns are legal.

Ergo, no criminal conspiracy. A slap on the wrist is warranted. That is all.

griffdaddy

You can make these things really easily yourself anyway, one of the many 'under the counter' badges i got in Scouts.

r3nu4l

griffdaddy wrote: »

...one of the many 'under the counter' badges i got in Scouts.

There's no such thing!

<_<

>_>

Ssshhhh! Ixnay on the gabdes derun the ternouc!

griffdaddy

sorry, what i mean to say was that i actually learned...how not to accidentally make them, yeah, that'll do.

lostexpectation

Morlar wrote: »

Hilarious that on the same day that guy got 2 years for importing stun guns (to sell to taxi drivers for protection) this guy here got a suspended sentence :

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/1211/ireland/mhsnaukfaukf/

A youth who was found guilty of taking part in a violent mugging has been given a six-month suspended sentence by Judge Bryan Smyth at the Dublin Children’s Court.

&

This one got 5 months for a different offence :

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/1211/ireland/mhsnaukfcwsn/

A youth convicted of attacking a garda whom he tried to push him off a third-floor flat complex balcony has been given a five-months detention sentence.

these weapons could lead to ten of those cases.

Nodin

griffdaddy wrote: »

sorry, what i mean to say was that i actually learned...how not to accidentally make them, yeah, that'll do.

Doesn't matter. Since the Good Friday thing, all the 'scouts' are forgiven.

board om

I actually know the guy. well im pretty sure its the same person. I use to hang around with him when i was younger. i havent seen him in years but the last time i saw him he was moving to Thailand to live. it makes sense that he had the stun guns sent from there. he is mad into guns and martial arts weapons and stuff like that. he is a bit of a lunatic tbh. when i saw the article in the herald i had a look at his myspace page to see if it was him and there are loads of videos of him shooting handguns in shooting ranges. crazy stuff.

he actually posts on Boards.ie but im not going to say his username.

he isnt an actor though, he was an extra in a few films that were made here like Braveheart and a few others. and he definitly isnt 'highly educated', in fact i think he dopped out of school and he definitly didnt go to college. so i dont know where they got that from.

2 years is definitly too much. 6 months to a year would have been more than enough, and even that would be a bit extreme.

antodeco

'you can take my stun guns, but you'l never take my freedom!'

Too late.

Manic Moran

these weapons could lead to ten of those cases

It seems that no weapons at all lead to those two cases, why would a stun gun make more of them happen?

Well, broken law, you're going to get burned. Two years is a bit stiff, but I don't have issue with the prosecution itself.

Categorising it as a firearm, though? Seems odd, to put it mildly. What will a stun-gun do that a knife won't, when used offensively? "Give me your money or I stun you" vs "Give me the money or I cut you." Could help defensively, though. Irish system seems to pay lip service to the right to self defense, but heaven help you if you try owning something which helps you do so, even at home.

NTM

seamus

Manic Moran wrote: »

Categorising it as a firearm, though? Seems odd, to put it mildly. What will a stun-gun do that a knife won't, when used offensively?

Well, the point generally is that stun guns are designed specifically for use against people and afaik contain some form of charge or propellant, which is why it's a "Firearm". If there was nothing fired out, it would simply be classed as a weapon, because that's what it is.

The vast, vast majority of knives aren't designed to be, nor used as weapons. It's just incidental that they can be used.

Irish law though is brilliantly flexible on this topic. It's not a case that it's OK to walk around with a knife, but not OK to walk around with a stungun. You could be carrying a large spanner, and if a Garda thinks that you have used or intend to use it as a weapon, you can be charged with possession of an offensive weapon.

minidazzler

The_Minister wrote: »

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence which is normally about 14 years.
Manslaughter carries a lesser sentence.
So murderers don't, by and large, get two years.

And, btw, those weapons can kill, so the Gardaí just jailed someone for illegally importing semi-lethal weapons.
He is a real criminal.

The term is less-lethal, and while I conceed that they "CAN" kill someone, it is highly unlikely that they will. Alot of things that are legal can cause alot more damage than a stungun.

2 years is alot of jail time for someone who may have been trying to just help a few taxi-drivers out of sticky situations!!!

seamus wrote: »

Well, the point generally is that stun guns are designed specifically for use against people and afaik contain some form of charge or propellant, which is why it's a "Firearm". If there was nothing fired out, it would simply be classed as a weapon, because that's what it is.

The vast, vast majority of knives aren't designed to be, nor used as weapons. It's just incidental that they can be used.

Irish law though is brilliantly flexible on this topic. It's not a case that it's OK to walk around with a knife, but not OK to walk around with a stungun. You could be carrying a large spanner, and if a Garda thinks that you have used or intend to use it as a weapon, you can be charged with possession of an offensive weapon.

No Tazers fire 2 barbs into the other persons body and shocks them, stun-guns are for use when you are as close to the other person as a knife could be used. ou have to put it extremely close to there body before shocking them works. As in a few inches.

Manic Moran

Well, the point generally is that stun guns are designed specifically for use against people and afaik contain some form of charge or propellant,

Granted I'm relying on Irish law and news reporting using the terms more or less in an equivalent manner to that in the US where both systems are common, but generally a 'stun gun' is a device which has two inbuilt prongs which remain attached to the device and stays in the hand, whilst a 'Taser' has become the generic name for a device regardless of manufacturer which fires electrodes to a range of several meters.

If you want to take the description of 'offensive weapons' to their obvious and stupid extent, I recently found this pic taken in Marks and Spencers in the UK.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/3084176591_1989e1f8dd_b.jpg

I mean, reallly. Silverware? If I let a 17-year-old eat with a knife and fork, I'm automatically providing him with offensive weapons?

NTM

Victor

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Two years for this seems a bit severe condsidering what sentences murderers and rapists get. Good to see the police are getting the real criminals.

Theres a story in the weekend's papers that the Garda is investigating a death involving a stun gun.

Nodin

Victor wrote: »

Theres a story in the weekend's papers that the Garda is investigating a death involving a stun gun.

Which is sort of neither here nor there, considering there doesn't seem to have been any criminal intent on the part of this eejit. The fact is that as pointed out on this thread, people - many with previous form - have received lesser sentences for crimes involving assault, violence, robbery etc. A heavy fine and a few months inside would have done.

lostexpectation

of course there criminal intent, eveybody knows stun guns are illegal

Nodin

lostexpectation wrote: »

of course there criminal intent, eveybody knows stun guns are illegal

Evidently not, as why the f/uck would he get ten of them posted to his gaff if he did? He could have them bought over there and then had them posted on to a po box.

Dyr

Manic Moran wrote: »

Granted I'm relying on Irish law and news reporting using the terms more or less in an equivalent manner to that in the US where both systems are common, but generally a 'stun gun' is a device which has two inbuilt prongs which remain attached to the device and stays in the hand, whilst a 'Taser' has become the generic name for a device regardless of manufacturer which fires electrodes to a range of several meters.

If you want to take the description of 'offensive weapons' to their obvious and stupid extent, I recently found this pic taken in Marks and Spencers in the UK.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/3084176591_1989e1f8dd_b.jpg

I mean, reallly. Silverware? If I let a 17-year-old eat with a knife and fork, I'm automatically providing him with offensive weapons?

NTM

We tend to ape the british in their laws, and the british like their laws as sweeping as possible.

seamus

Manic Moran wrote: »

Granted I'm relying on Irish law and news reporting using the terms more or less in an equivalent manner to that in the US where both systems are common, but generally a 'stun gun' is a device which has two inbuilt prongs which remain attached to the device and stays in the hand, whilst a 'Taser' has become the generic name for a device regardless of manufacturer which fires electrodes to a range of several meters.

I had assumed purely from the firearms classification, that this was a Taser and not a stun gun, but I might be wrong. The Irish media are well-known for using the wrong names for items. I once heard about a shipment of stolen media players & consoles described as "A container of iPods and Playstations". The container didn't contain either of these things.
The firearms legislation requires that the weapon discharges some form of missile, so in order to be charged under that act, they would need to have been tasers or similar devices.

I mean, reallly. Silverware? If I let a 17-year-old eat with a knife and fork, I'm automatically providing him with offensive weapons?

The UK are at fever pitch at the moment in relation to knives and stabbings, despite it actually not being that big a problem at all. The Brits are known for knee-jerk legislation which, as Bambi points out, tends to be as sweeping and absurdly wide-ranging as possible.