Larry Murphy can roam free but women can't defend themselves?

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 11:27AM

stop wrote: »

Perhaps we need a place like this?

Exactly why can't we do that !

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 11:28AM

rilester wrote: »

What is all the fuss about, Larry Murphy Killed no body, he has served his time and should now be left alone, all this media frenzy is creating a witch hunt, Wayne O'Donoghue killed a child, did four years and there was nothing about him!!!! People need to move on!!

You can't be serious, what if it was your sister/girlfriend/mother/daughter/aunt?

norrie rugger · 13-08-2010 11:36AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

Post edited.

Well the abduction, rape and attempted murder was only what he was charged with at the time and is because the victim was rescued, he didn't get around to disposing of her.

As for carrying mace there are plenty of small aerosol spray cans these days but you may have a hard time with a garda or a judge explaining why you had the miniature hairspray from your Toni and Guy gift set in your pocket.

Plenty of mini deoderants around now days, if one were so inclined

whippet · 13-08-2010 11:39AM

Danniboo ... could you post a link to the quote from Murphy's councillor where Murphy said he would re-offend?

its a big claim, i'd like to see it.

Canis Lupus · 13-08-2010 11:40AM

Danniboo wrote: »

Why are people so keen to defend him in regards to whether he killed the other missing women. He was convicted of beating, repeatedly raping and attempting to murder one girl, does this mean it's okay for him to be released into society and people shouldn't be weary.

We're pointing out that he hasn't been convicted of murder. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system.

If you want your question answered then Mr Murphy has served his time and should be allowed to go free as dictated by the laws that govern this land and yes women (as does everybody) have the right to defend themselves.

/end thread.

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 11:45AM

whippet wrote: »

Danniboo ... could you post a link to the quote from Murphy's councillor where Murphy said he would re-offend?

its a big claim, i'd like to see it.

It was on the News.

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 11:46AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

We're pointing out that he hasn't been convicted of murder. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system.

If you want your question answered then Mr Murphy has served his time and should be allowed to go free as dictated by the laws that govern this land and yes women (as does everybody) have the right to defend themselves.

/end thread.

Innocent is a bit of a gross exaggeration.

You agree then he should be allowed live freely after what he's done?

whippet · 13-08-2010 11:46AM

Danniboo wrote: »

It was on the News.

any idea of which news station? as I don't believe it to be true, if it was said I am sure the rag media would be all over it !!!

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 11:49AM

monkeypants wrote: »

We're sending him to Rome now? Outrageous! Shocking! Who's paying for this?

Where did it say this?

drkpower · 13-08-2010 11:52AM

Danniboo wrote: »

Yes my view is charmingly one sided, i'm not going to get in to the right and wrong dilemma, the thread was supposed to be out women defending themselves from monsters like this and the public being protected,not who should die or who should not die, and whether I'd like to shoot them.

So you just want to post 'why cant we do X or Y' questions which make things sound incredibly simple rather than putting in the hard work of understanding and analysing the issues, in all of their complexity.

Yes, that kind of simplistic knee-jerk analysis is what we need....:rolleyes:

Good luck - perhaps if this is the level of superficial schoolyard debate that the OP intended, this thread should be merged with the one in AH. And moved there?

Canis Lupus · 13-08-2010 11:52AM

Danniboo wrote: »

Innocent is a bit of a gross exaggeration.

You agree then he should be allowed live freely after what he's done?

Nope innocent is not a gross exaggeration unless you're aware of a conviction for murder that I'm not.

I personally think he needs to be monitored carefully now that he has been released.

Danniboo wrote: »

Where did it say this?

*Whooosh*

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 11:55AM

drkpower wrote: »

So you just want to post 'why cant we do X or Y' questions which make things sound incredibly simple rather than putting in the hard work of understanding and analysing the issues, in all of their complexity.

Yes, that kind of simplistic knee-jerk analysis is what we need....:rolleyes:

Good luck - perhaps if this is the level of superficial schoolyard debate that the OP intended, this thread should be merged with the one in AH. And moved there?

It is incredibly simple the man is a rapist/attempted murderer at very least, psychopath.

There's SFA superficial about someones sister or mother being raped or murdered and people wanting this scum behind bars. It amazes me aswell the way its all the men on this thread that are the ones playing the *innocent until proving guilty* card and *he didn't murder anyone* and *leave him alone*. That is really disturbing.

Dyr · 13-08-2010 12:02PM

drkpower wrote: »

Two issues there:

2. Pepper-spray/Mace: The principle of not letting people carry 'weapons' is a good one; im sure you can appreciate that it wont just be vulnerable women who will be carrying mace around if it is legal.

Who else will be carrying it around then? The people who don't care if they're breaking the law? Guess what? they'll be carrying anyway.

Second, the use of weapons by victims has been shown, time and time again, to, more often and not, result in the victim being injured much more significantly than they would have been otherwise. Is that the result you are looking for?

Where did you pick that up from? Is there any reliable research that has ever backed this up?

13-08-2010 12:02PM

Danniboo wrote: »

It is incredibly simple the man is a rapist/attempted murderer at very least, psychopath.

There's SFA superficial about someones sister or mother being raped or murdered and people wanting this scum behind bars. It amazes me aswell the way its all the men on this thread that are the ones playing the *innocent until proving guilty* card and *he didn't murder anyone* and *leave him alone*. That is really disturbing.

Ehhh, unless you have some kind of magic internet tool, you have no idea of the genders of the people posting unless they've said it themselves

But since this thread was supposed to be about women defending themselves, are you going to answer these questions:
If she uses it in self-defence, are you assuming it won't just enrage the attacker and cause her to get hurt worse? What if she panics and sprays someone who was "looking at her funny"?

And since you're advocating allowing people to carry weapons, what about the teenage scumbag who's going to carry it around for use in fights? In fact, what about the rapist who's going to carry it to make it easier to incapacitate victims?

danbohan · 13-08-2010 12:06PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Hi,

I'm sure everyone is as outraged as I am about the release of Larry Murphy on "good behaviour".:mad: It just got me thinking, it is illegal to carry pepper spray/mace etc in this country yet we are expected to walk the streets with this monster roaming around, what are peoples views on this? Do you think women should be allowed to carry this to defend themselves, would you carry it anyways regardless of it been banned?

larry murphy is a dangerous man that should be in jail but this near obsession with him at the moment is nonsense , their are probably a few hundred more larry murphys in ireland right at this moment just as dangerous or much more so because nobody knows them , nobodys monitoring them they are the real risk

13-08-2010 12:13PM

Bambi wrote: »

Who else will be carrying it around then? The people who don't care if they're breaking the law? Guess what? they'll be carrying anyway.

Except it would now be perfectly legal for them to do so, and they would find it much easier to get them.

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 12:14PM

28064212 wrote: »

Ehhh, unless you have some kind of magic internet tool, you have no idea of the genders of the people posting unless they've said it themselves

But since this thread was supposed to be about women defending themselves, are you going to answer these questions:
If she uses it in self-defence, are you assuming it won't just enrage the attacker and cause her to get hurt worse? What if she panics and sprays someone who was "looking at her funny"?

And since you're advocating allowing people to carry weapons, what about the teenage scumbag who's going to carry it around for use in fights? In fact, what about the rapist who's going to carry it to make it easier to incapacitate victims?

Eh they have said it on their previous posts!!!!! Check yourself if you don't believe me.

We've already discussed the risks about the victims, criminals using it and it turning out worse, obvioulsy there's risk involved. But there needs to be some kind of happy medium that can be reached, ie garda vetting or something. What about that spray that leaves people with a paint like harmless substance on them for days, making them easily identifiable.

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 12:17PM

I agree with Danniboo. Its very disturbing regardless of gender that people on this thread believe that a woman having permission to carry mace spray is wrong, on the basis that she might use it at the wrong time....yet its alright to release a rapist and possible murderer because thats the law.

What is worse? If somebody used mace spray incorrectly or you/ your sister/ your mother/etc being raped or murdered.

Some of you are trying to make out that fair is fair Larry Murphy did his time.....his victim and her family are probably starting the whole rehabilatation process again from yesterday.

I just don't understand how people can say think "Larry Murphy did his time' and in the same sentence think ' people should not be allowed carry a protective spray because they might not use it properly'!!

So you trust a rapist but not the general public being able to possibly protect themselves form a convicted rapist?

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 12:21PM

28064212 wrote: »

Except it would now be perfectly legal for them to do so, and they would find it much easier to get them.

And if a garda vetting system was in place people like this or anyone who used it offensively would not be allowed carry it. Its better to risk this than a young girl being raped or murdered.

Dacelonid · 13-08-2010 12:24PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Where did it say this?

You said it in the thread title, the word you are looking for is "roam" not "Rome".
I am not nitpicking, just pointing out what the other poster was on about

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 12:28PM

Dacelonid wrote: »

You said it in the thread title, the word you are looking for is "roam" not "Rome".
I am not nitpicking, just pointing out what the other poster was on about

Sorry if my sense of humour fails me on this topic.

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 12:33PM

Can you change the thread title?

13-08-2010 12:41PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Eh they have said it on their previous posts!!!!! Check yourself if you don't believe me.

So none of the posts calling for his head are from men, and none of the posts calling for restraint are from women?

Danniboo wrote: »

We've already discussed the risks about the victims, criminals using it and it turning out worse, obvioulsy there's risk involved. But there needs to be some kind of happy medium that can be reached, ie garda vetting or something.

Actually, no, it hasn't been discussed at all. People have posted responses about why it's a bad idea to allow weapons to be carried, and none of those have been answered, other than to say it should be allowed.

Danniboo wrote: »

What about that spray that leaves people with a paint like harmless substance on them for days, making them easily identifiable.

So I can go around spraying men with a harmless paint, and they're identified as rapists? So it allows accusation with no need to back up, and in the mean-time, a victim will be able to be raped anyway since it's harmless, taking away the whole self-defence argument? A spray for identification would be utterly useless

dolliemix wrote: »

I agree with Danniboo. Its very disturbing regardless of gender that people on this thread believe that a woman having permission to carry mace spray is wrong, on the basis that she might use it at the wrong time....yet its alright to release a rapist and possible murderer because thats the law.

So only women can carry weapons for self-defence? Why stop at mace? Why not just legalise guns and be done with it?

dolliemix wrote: »

What is worse? If somebody used mace spray incorrectly or you/ your sister/ your mother/etc being raped or murdered.

Well to begin with, pepper spray is lethal in certain circumstances. Secondly, that argument is incorrect. It's not as simple as saying one or the other. You're leaving out the fact that it would be much easier for rapists to use pepper spray for their own purposes, or that if it was legal they would be prepared for it, or the problems making a weapon legal would cause

dolliemix wrote: »

Some of you are trying to make out that fair is fair Larry Murphy did his time.....his victim and her family are probably starting the whole rehabilatation process again from yesterday.

What about the drunk driver that killed 4 people? You're talking about allowing the media and uninformed public opinion to make the laws. I don't think he should be let out, but the law needs to be changed in the same way as every other new law is brought in, not off the back of some mass hysteria

dolliemix wrote: »

I just don't understand how people can say think "Larry Murphy did his time' and in the same sentence think ' people should not be allowed carry a protective spray because they might not use it properly'!!

So you trust a rapist but not the general public being able to possibly protect themselves form a convicted rapist?

People should not be allowed carry weapons. Period. I don't trust a rapist, but I don't trust weapons in the hands of the "general public" (of who the rapist is a member btw) either

Danniboo wrote: »

And if a garda vetting system was in place people like this or anyone who used it offensively would not be allowed carry it. Its better to risk this than a young girl being raped or murdered.

So we decide after the fact? What about the person with no previous convictions who obtains the spray legally, then uses it to commit a rape/murder? Even if they're stopped beforehand and searched, they are perfectly entitled to carry the spray, right up until they use it to commit a crime

PandyAndy · 13-08-2010 12:48PM

Danniboo wrote: »

[/B]NO I live in one of the hometown where one of the girls went missing from, and he was working in town when she went missing and we're not a million miles away from Baltinglass. He is a pure psychopath, has shown no remorce or apology for his crimes, his psychologist words were he's just waiting to get out to reoffend. When he assaulted that poor girl he spoke to her in a normal manner as if nothing had happened, he's a monster.

I would have said Socio-path. They tend to be worse than monsters. At least a monster knows it's a monster.

drkpower wrote: »

So Murphy deserves to die?
What about:
- a guy who rapes someone after a date where both parties are very drunk?
- a guy who holds up a bank?
- a guy who beats up a pensioner?
- a guy who murders a soldier who he believes is occupying his country?
- a guy who commits financial fraud resulting in massive a €50 billion loss to the exchequer and resultant enormous unemployment and misery?Do all of them also deserve to die? If some of them dont, why not?

Starting at the top...
1.)So Murphy deserves to die?
Maybe* not death but certainly life in prison. *I'd put it to unanimous vote amongst Judges or someone.
2.)A guy who rapes someone after a date where both parties are very drunk?
No, the main difference being there was no intent to murder. Still give him a harsh prison sentence.
3.)A guy who holds up a bank?
He'll probably steal quite a bit of money but that's only materialistic. 5 years in prison will be fine for him, and two Hail Marys.
4.)A guy who beats up a pensioner?
No, of course not. Again there was no intent to murder just to cause harm. I'd give him 15 yrs in prison regardless of the role i.e man vs woman, woman vs man, adult vs child etc although if the victim died of injuries afterwards then I'd give the accused 25+ years.
5.)A guy who murders a soldier who he believes is occupying his country?
At a guess I'd say he'd now be classed as an enemy-combatant and he's now entered war. Retaliation would be inevitable I suppose.
6.)A guy who commits financial fraud resulting in massive a €50 billion loss to the exchequer and resultant enormous unemployment and misery?Do all of them also deserve to die?
Again as number 3, it's still only materialistic but far more extreme and the misery caused by this could lead to further crimes so therefore he'd be given life in prison too.

I'd have to side with Danniboo here, Larry Murphy certainly doesn't deserve to be back on the streets in my opinion.

As for the right to carry weapons, I'd have to side with the person who said no. Like they said then the offenders will carry weapons too and will act more violently. If I had more time to answer this properly this would be longer but I'm at work and need to get back to it.

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 12:53PM

28064212 wrote: »

So none of the posts calling for his head are from men, and none of the posts calling for restraint are from women?

Actually, no, it hasn't been discussed at all. People have posted responses about why it's a bad idea to allow weapons to be carried, and none of those have been answered, other than to say it should be allowed.

So I can go around spraying men with a harmless paint, and they're identified as rapists? So it allows accusation with no need to back up, and in the mean-time, a victim will be able to be raped anyway since it's harmless, taking away the whole self-defence argument? A spray for identification would be utterly useless

So only women can carry weapons for self-defence? Why stop at mace? Why not just legalise guns and be done with it?

Well to begin with, pepper spray is lethal in certain circumstances. Secondly, that argument is incorrect. It's not as simple as saying one or the other. You're leaving out the fact that it would be much easier for rapists to use pepper spray for their own purposes, or that if it was legal they would be prepared for it, or the problems making a weapon legal would cause

What about the drunk driver that killed 4 people? You're talking about allowing the media and uninformed public opinion to make the laws. I don't think he should be let out, but the law needs to be changed in the same way as every other new law is brought in, not off the back of some mass hysteria

People should not be allowed carry weapons. Period. I don't trust a rapist, but I don't trust weapons in the hands of the "general public" (of who the rapist is a member btw) either

So we decide after the fact? What about the person with no previous convictions who obtains the spray legally, then uses it to commit a rape/murder? Even if they're stopped beforehand and searched, they are perfectly entitled to carry the spray, right up until they use it to commit a crime

Good point that the rapist could use the spray paint etc as well. I actually could not care less whether mace spray or whatever is legalised or not. As another poster pointed out deodrant could do the job!

My point was that I cannot believe that people are getting so outraged about someone suggesting that women (or men!!!) should not be allowed to carry this spray just incase some idiots use it incorrectly, yet in the same breath they were telling danniboo to get over himself/herself because he/she believes Larry Murphy is a threat to women!!!

I don't understand your reference to the drunk driver. What does that have to do with this thread?

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 12:59PM

28064212 wrote: »

So none of the posts calling for his head are from men, and none of the posts calling for restraint are from women?

I didn't say that but the majority of the calls for restraint are from men.

Actually, no, it hasn't been discussed at all. People have posted responses about why it's a bad idea to allow weapons to be carried, and none of those have been answered, other than to say it should be allowed.

People have posted responses about the possible risks involved, that's what I was talking about.

So I can go around spraying men with a harmless paint, and they're identified as rapists? So it allows accusation with no need to back up, and in the mean-time, a victim will be able to be raped anyway since it's harmless, taking away the whole self-defence argument? A spray for identification would be utterly useless

So, no to Pepper Spray and No to Self Protection Spray, have you and constructive suggestions or are you just going to dismiss anyone is who is trying to come up with a solution or process in place and ride along on your Larry Murphy should be freed wagon.

So only women can carry weapons for self-defence? Why stop at mace? Why not just legalise guns and be done with it?

I never said anything about men or women being allowed, carry or not carry anything, as far as I know he hasn't raped any men, which is why I said women, so now you want to carry something for self defence is it? You're being ridiculous, there's a difference between carrying a can of mace to feel a bit safer than a gun.

Well to begin with, pepper spray is lethal in certain circumstances. Secondly, that argument is incorrect. It's not as simple as saying one or the other. You're leaving out the fact that it would be much easier for rapists to use pepper spray for their own purposes, or that if it was legal they would be prepared for it, or the problems making a weapon legal would cause.

Of course it's gonna be easier for rapists to use it, you can order it online do you really think if a rapist wanted to use pepper spray on someone they're gonna say, Oops better not sure that's illegal. What???

What about the drunk driver that killed 4 people? You're talking about allowing the media and uninformed public opinion to make the laws. I don't think he should be let out, but the law needs to be changed in the same way as every other new law is brought in, not off the back of some mass hysteria.

It's not mass hysteria, 10 years is not long enough for someoene who has not been rehabilitated and shown no remorce. Do you think his victim has put this behind her in 10 years or will ever forget what he did?

People should not be allowed carry weapons. Period. I don't trust a rapist, but I don't trust weapons in the hands of the "general public" (of who the rapist is a member btw) either

Right so we should not be allowed to defend ourselves.

So we decide after the fact? What about the person with no previous convictions who obtains the spray legally, then uses it to commit a rape/murder? Even if they're stopped beforehand and searched, they are perfectly entitled to carry the spray, right up until they use it to commit a crime

If people are sick enough to commit these heinous crimes what bloody difference does legalising self defence/protection spray make. Do you really think they won't use something else as a weapon seriously. Do you think people who are perfectly normal law abiding citizens are suddenly going to turn into serial killers or rapists because they can buy pepper spray over the counter?

Permabear · 13-08-2010 01:02PM

This post has been deleted.

13-08-2010 01:03PM

dolliemix wrote: »

I don't understand your reference to the drunk driver. What does that have to do with this thread?

There's invariably a hysterical media reaction when a drunk-driver kills someone. Does that mean the laws for drink-driving should be changed on the back of that? Using media-hyped outrages to drive what laws should and shouldn't be implemented is a terrible way to run a society

13-08-2010 01:07PM

Danniboo wrote: »

If people are sick enough to commit these heinous crimes what bloody difference does legalising self defence/protection spray make. Do you really think they won't use something else as a weapon seriously. Do you think people who are perfectly normal law abiding citizens are suddenly going to turn into serial killers or rapists because they can buy pepper spray over the counter?

No, it'll just make it much easier for the rapists and criminals to do it. You're envisioning a situation where legalising it will mean the victim has pepper spray and the attacker doesn't. That's not what will happen. Both of them will have it, and the attacker will be much better at using it. Or the attacker will have it, and the victim won't, because victims don't plan to be victims, whereas attackers do plan to attack

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 01:13PM

28064212 wrote: »

No, it'll just make it much easier for the rapists and criminals to do it. You're envisioning a situation where legalising it will mean the victim has pepper spray and the attacker doesn't. That's not what will happen. Both of them will have it, and the attacker will be much better at using it. Or the attacker will have it, and the victim won't, because victims don't plan to be victims, whereas attackers do plan to attack

You're very naive if you believe that. I could order it now if I wanted. So what happens now then say if an attacker orders pepper spray online as obviously if they are going to rape someone they don't care about carrying an illegal spray. Then there victim doesn't carry anything because they don't want to break the law and they have absolutely no form of protection, you think that's the better?

Larry Murphy can roam free but women can't defend themselves?

Comments