Suspended sentence for burning down a car dealership

02-07-2010 12:36PM

Fire killed my father and raped my mother.
Down with this sort of thing.

I.S.T. · 02-07-2010 12:36PM

rovert wrote: »

I guess you dont just get. Not everything is black and white, clear cut. There is a range of acceptability in all decisions.

I bet you wouldn't feel the same if he burnt your house down.

RolandIRL · 02-07-2010 12:42PM

Women judges....:rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster · 02-07-2010 12:43PM

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I bet you wouldn't feel the same if he burnt your house down.

unless he maybe asked him to...

;) nudge nudge

the_syco · 02-07-2010 01:40PM

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Feck sake, so any old sob story about mothers dying and drugs means you get immunity from prosecution ?

Happens every time.

=-=

He got off scot free. Rovert, I have no idea how you got that bat-sh|t crazy idea that the owner was in on the place being burnt down over two yeara ago.

rovert · 02-07-2010 02:15PM

prinz wrote: »

Yeah silly me. I don't get it. I just don't 'get' that the sentence is perfectly fair, because maybe in the judge's personal deliberations, there might have been a possible ulterior motive in an attempt at an insurance scam.

It's not like anyone would have thought of that say while investigating the matter.

Seriously you are all over the shop you are confusing so many elements both legal and intrapersonal in this case. I dont where to untie it all. Seriously.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I bet you wouldn't feel the same if he burnt your house down.

What a dumb post read the thread before you reply.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

unless he maybe asked him to...
;) nudge nudge

As the arsonists' motive is so completely clear, right? I know this AH but seriously. Engage your brain here.

the_syco wrote: »

He got off scot free. Rovert, I have no idea how you got that bat-sh|t crazy idea that the owner was in on the place being burnt down over two yeara ago.

You should actually read the thread and OP. It isnt bat **** crazy I laid it out pretty clear. It isnt my "idea" anyway I was only suggesting it as a probable scenario. Are you really that naive think that this suggestion is bat **** crazy?

maninasia · 02-07-2010 02:43PM

Does motive have any bearing on the sentence?
Also, what was the supposed motive?

How did the judge justify a suspended sentence with 12 previous convictions on a serious crime such as arson? Is there really such leeway to a judge that she can suspend a sentence because his mother died a few years ago?

prinz · 02-07-2010 02:44PM

rovert wrote: »

You should actually read the thread and OP. It isnt bat **** crazy I laid it out pretty clear. It isnt my "idea" anyway I was only suggesting it as a probable scenario. Are you really that naive think that this suggestion is bat **** crazy?

You are suggesting a possible scenario and the declaring the actual sentence to be fair... can you not see how ridiculous that is? You didn't say 'the sentence would be fair if....', you said the sentence is fair, on what grounds? On the grounds of your own imagination, and what might have/could have/would have happened. Joker.

I.S.T. · 02-07-2010 02:44PM

rovert wrote: »

Seriously you are all over the shop you are confusing so many elements both legal and intrapersonal in this case. I dont where to untie it all. Seriously.

What a dumb post read the thread before you reply.

As the arsonists' motive is so completely clear, right? I know this AH but seriously. Engage your brain here.

You should actually read the thread and OP. It isnt bat **** crazy I laid it out pretty clear. It isnt my "idea" anyway I was only suggesting it as a probable scenario. Are you really that naive think that this suggestion is bat **** crazy?

You would do better to defend your position instead of attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

prinz · 02-07-2010 02:45PM

rovert wrote: »

Seriously you are all over the shop you are confusing so many elements both legal and intrapersonal in this case. I dont where to untie it all. Seriously.

What elements did I confuse? I am not the one basing my opinion on pure conjecture and conspiracy theories.

kippy · 02-07-2010 02:52PM

12 fcking pervious convictions?
What kinda advert is this to be sending to the youth/idle of this country.
Do whatever the fcuk ya want, we'll give ya a slap on the wrist if you get caught.........

People deserve a chance or even two for minor indesgressions but 12?
We need to import some of the best bits of the asian/middle eastern justice system I say. PC has gotten to big a power.We wouldnt have as much need for courts/judges/solicitors or jails cos less people would be likely to offend due to the punishments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2366419.stm

Morlar · 02-07-2010 02:58PM

Total disgrace. These judges need to realise that giving suspended sentences week in and week out on and on has a very bad effect on society.

Scumbags know exactly how to play the system while their victims realise that the system does not seem to even want to protect them.

02-07-2010 03:01PM

its the random nature of sentencing in this country which really needs to be addressed .

02-07-2010 03:09PM

rovert:

The facts of the case are that he was most definitely guilty of arson. If he wants to come forward with evidence that he was asked to do it, he can do that. Otherwise, the judge has no right to take that into account. That dealership was (according to the article) the victim of arson attacks 4 times in two years. And this happened before the recession, when the industry was at its peak, so there was no obvious reason for the owners to want it burnt down. The judge specifically said that the lenient sentence was down to "Harcourt's good employment record, his standing in the community, his early plea of guilty and testimonials to his good character". Nothing about motives. This is despite his previous 12 convictions, and the fact that he lied to the Gardai (twice) about his whereabouts when questioned. This sentence is a complete farce

Overheal · 02-07-2010 03:12PM

Judge Patricia Ryan said the court took into account the serious nature of the charge and the dire financial consequences that it had for Fort Motors.

She also said the court noted Harcourt's personal circumstances, in that his drug-addicted mother died in 2001, leaving his sister, who was 15 years old at the time, to raise him.

In suspending the sentence, Judge Ryan said the court had taken into account Harcourt's good employment record, his standing in the community, his early plea of guilty and testimonials to his good character.

Hey Patricia?

F*CK YOU.

"Justice" :mad::rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster · 02-07-2010 03:13PM

his standing in the community

on top of everybody's head?

Cuddlesworth · 02-07-2010 03:20PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

on top of everybody's head?

To stop all those fires from starting by taking money from them of course.

I.S.T. · 02-07-2010 03:21PM

Overheal wrote: »

Hey Patricia?

F*CK YOU.

"Justice" :mad::rolleyes:

I imagine he was saying the same as he left the court:

tooth*grinder · 02-07-2010 03:46PM

Having had a case gone before her in the past couple of weeks - all I can say is I'm not surprised.
Came in late, took long lunch (and apparently left early) on a Friday....
The case in question was over 2 guys breaking into my house; long story short i was assaulted in my home with a shovel by one of them. They were caught and admitted to it - she gave them both 5 months to be served at the same time as their current sentences they were serving for other offences.
So not a day extra inside for my assault....
Still I'm sure it'll look good on her stats...

Patrica love - do us a favour and wake the FCUK UP!!!

rovert · 02-07-2010 03:49PM

prinz wrote: »

You are suggesting a possible scenario and the declaring the actual sentence to be fair... can you not see how ridiculous that is? You didn't say 'the sentence would be fair if....', you said the sentence is fair, on what grounds? On the grounds of your own imagination, and what might have/could have/would have happened. Joker.

Do you understand what a possible scenario is right?
Do you realise that I made the two points (the belief that it was fair and the possibility that here is more to the case than what has been printed) seperately right? This is the type of thing Im talking about when I said you get easily confused.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

You would do better to defend your position instead of attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

Erm they are attacking me.... . What is so hard in thinking that give the lack of a solid motive in this case that the arsonist and the car dealer the owner of a high valued, insured capitial items in an industry at the start of a deep down swing might have been in on it together.

prinz wrote: »

What elements did I confuse? I am not the one basing my opinion on pure conjecture and conspiracy theories.

Same elements which Ive already previously pointed out in previous points.

kippy wrote: »

12 fcking pervious convictions?
What kinda advert is this to be sending to the youth/idle of this country.
Do whatever the fcuk ya want, we'll give ya a slap on the wrist if you get caught.........

People deserve a chance or even two for minor indesgressions but 12?
We need to import some of the best bits of the asian/middle eastern justice system I say. PC has gotten to big a power.We wouldnt have as much need for courts/judges/solicitors or jails cos less people would be likely to offend due to the punishments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2366419.stm

"12 fcking pervious convictions" so notable that the reporter didnt even point out what for. :rolleyes: Jumping to conclusions much? Rabble, rabble, rabble.

28064212 wrote: »

rovert:

The facts of the case are that he was most definitely guilty of arson. If he wants to come forward with evidence that he was asked to do it, he can do that. Otherwise, the judge has no right to take that into account. That dealership was (according to the article) the victim of arson attacks 4 times in two years. And this happened before the recession, when the industry was at its peak, so there was no obvious reason for the owners to want it burnt down. The judge specifically said that the lenient sentence was down to "Harcourt's good employment record, his standing in the community, his early plea of guilty and testimonials to his good character". Nothing about motives. This is despite his previous 12 convictions, and the fact that he lied to the Gardai (twice) about his whereabouts when questioned. This sentence is a complete farce

I dont you understand what Im saying either. Also seriously there is a lot of information missing in this court report so I wouldnt be jumping to conclusions either way.

kippy · 02-07-2010 04:10PM

rovert wrote: »

"12 fcking pervious convictions" so notable that the reporter didnt even point out what for. :rolleyes: Jumping to conclusions much? Rabble, rabble, rabble.

To be honest, I dont give a crap what they're for.
Geting convicted 12 times for ANYTHING in a court of law is ridiculous.
2 convictions for minor offences is as much of a chance as anyone should get.
third time should be straight to a proper jail. No tv's, none of that bull.

What happens if the next thing this guy graduates to is armed robbery or murder? One can only assume that this is perfectly plausible based on the serious of this offence.

prinz · 02-07-2010 04:11PM

rovert wrote: »

Do you understand what a possible scenario is right?

Yes. I also understand how nonsensical it is to find the verdict fair based on 'possible scenarios'.

rovert · 02-07-2010 04:21PM

prinz wrote: »

Yes. I also understand how nonsensical it is to find the verdict fair based on 'possible scenarios'.

You are still mixing up to two seperate statements I made. :rolleyes:

I dont know how many times I need to say this to you before the penny drops.

kippy wrote: »

To be honest, I dont give a crap what they're for.
Geting convicted 12 times for ANYTHING in a court of law is ridiculous.
2 convictions for minor offences is as much of a chance as anyone should get.
third time should be straight to a proper jail. No tv's, none of that bull.

What happens if the next thing this guy graduates to is armed robbery or murder? One can only assume that this is perfectly plausible based on the serious of this offence.

Sorry but this nonsense rabble rousing instead of justice. Again you dont know the full facts about this case especially the guy's background.

02-07-2010 04:22PM

rovert wrote: »

I dont you understand what Im saying either. Also seriously there is a lot of information missing in this court report so I wouldnt be jumping to conclusions either way.

There may be a lot of information missing. It may also be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If it's the latter, do you believe that this was a fair sentence?

rovert · 02-07-2010 04:30PM

28064212 wrote: »

There may be a lot of information missing.

So what was the moviation behind it then?

Cuddlesworth · 02-07-2010 04:36PM

28064212 wrote: »

There may be a lot of information missing. It may also be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If it's the latter, do you believe that this was a fair sentence?

What exactly does it take to get put in jail now days? Murdering spree with some child raping thrown in for good measure? Whats that worth, a year possibly two?

Yakult · 02-07-2010 04:41PM

Ireland may as well be a giant prison, so many criminals on the streets with suspended sentences. Country is a joke.

prinz · 02-07-2010 04:46PM

rovert wrote: »

You are still mixing up to two seperate statements I made. :rolleyes: I dont know how many times I need to say this to you before the penny drops.

No, I'm not.

(a) you claimed it was a fair decision..

rovert wrote: »

A thought it was a fair decision.
Obviously there is a bit more to the case than stated.

and (b) when asked why you thought it was fair that you started inventing your own possible scenarios..

rovert wrote: »

What if the judge the didnt fully believe that the arsonist and the car dealer were acting independently of each other?

See now? I think it was fair..... Why?...Because it's possible something else happened we don't know about.

kippy · 02-07-2010 04:48PM

rovert wrote: »

Sorry but this nonsense rabble rousing instead of justice. Again you dont know the full facts about this case especially the guy's background.

They guy burned down a business on top of 12 previous convictions - what do you know that we dont?
Theres stories in the paper every week about guys on 10+ convictions getting off very lightly on the case in question.
I dont particularily think this is justice.
You make one or two minor mistakes - okay, bit of leniency - but 10+??

conorhal · 02-07-2010 04:52PM

rovert wrote: »

You are still mixing up to two seperate statements I made. :rolleyes:

I dont know how many times I need to say this to you before the penny drops.

I don't know how many times you have to get mugged in the street by this guy while he's on probation or out on bail before the penny drops.... :rolleyes:

Suspended sentence for burning down a car dealership

Comments