Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Drink-Driver endangering others is beaten to death

24567

Comments

  • #32
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    They already are on a little island!

    Nah, I mean like somewhere between the island Robinson Crusoe ended up on and the one from Lost.

    The biggest I'd go would be Isla Sorna, but only if the dinosaurs were still there.


  • #33
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    I remember hearing this story at the time and being pretty shocked by the whole thing. I have to say that new information (new to me anyway) puts a completely different perspective on what happened.


  • #34
    flyswatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭flyswatter


    JamesL85 wrote: »
    This is why it's best to avoid confrontation on the road. It can escalate and you never know what nutter is going to pull a hurley or tyre iron from the boot.

    What the killer should have done is just pull over and let yer man off. Then get on the phone to the guards and tell them where he is and what direction he's heading.
    Giving him more time to kill someone on the road? Great idea that.


  • #35
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Logical Fallacy wrote: »
    Nah, I mean like somewhere between the island Robinson Crusoe ended up on and the one from Lost.

    Send criminals to a fancy tropical island with palm trees and coconuts!!!!!!

    The Daily Mail would be able to get a weeks worth of front pages out of that!


  • #36
    bwatson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    That would be a legal impossibility, to commit murder you have to intentionally set out to kill someone.

    I think you might mean manslaughter, if so do you really think it would be practical or fair to imprison every drink driver for 4-12 years?

    I'm not sure but I don't think That is quite right - if you intend to seriously injure someone and they end up dead as a result of your actions then that too is murder.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    jblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭jblack


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Send criminals to a fancy tropical island with palm trees and coconuts!!!!!!

    The Daily Mail would be able to get a weeks worth of front pages out of that!

    "hurley stick" - f***ing Independent is a toilet rag. Hurley stick; have they farmed their journalism out to a call centre in Mumbai?


  • #38
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Send criminals to a fancy tropical island with palm trees and coconuts!!!!!!

    The Daily Mail would be able to get a weeks worth of front pages out of that!

    True, but you could combat the pleasant environs by ensuring there was lots of Malaria and rape.


  • #39
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    L'prof wrote: »
    Why did he need to hit him in the head when he was lying on the ground?

    so he wouldnt get back up ;)


  • #40
    jblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭jblack


    bwatson wrote: »
    I'm not sure but I don't think That is quite right - if you intend to seriously injure someone and they end up dead as a result of your actions then that too is murder.

    I am sure and you are quite right bwatson, mens rea may be sufficient for murder where there is an intention to kill or seriously injure someone.


  • #41
    Dubit10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 609 ✭✭✭Dubit10


    MickySticks wrote: »
    But he didn't kill anybody. :confused:

    He did'nt but he had drank 10 pints of beer and could have. He won't now that's for sure.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,626 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    flyswatter wrote: »
    Giving him more time to kill someone on the road? Great idea that.

    So should we just kill anyone and everyone who we perceive as a threat to others? In that case a bystander should have murdered Donohoe for beating an unconscious man over the head. Rinse and repeat until your own reactions land you in a position where you're the one seen as a threat.


  • #43
    Dubit10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 609 ✭✭✭Dubit10


    up for anything wrote: »
    In my opinion anyone getting in a car to drive it after drinking should be automatically found guilty of attempted murder if caught as well as of drink driving.

    +1


  • #44
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    the moral of the story? just as in nature, dont fcuk with a parent when they have their offspring around and feel threated..


  • #45
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    bwatson wrote: »
    I'm not sure but I don't think That is quite right - if you intend to seriously injure someone and they end up dead as a result of your actions then that too is murder.

    The key word there is intent. You have to set out with the intention to carry out the action (in legal-ese this is called mens rea meaning 'guilty mind')

    Drink drivers involved in fatal crashes (generally speaking) do not set out with the intent to kill someone


  • #46
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭up for anything


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    That would be a legal impossibility, to commit murder you have to intentionally set out to kill someone.

    I think you might mean manslaughter, if so do you really think it would be practical or fair to imprison every drink driver for 4-12 years?

    Fair enough, manslaughter if you want to be picky. For me though, drink driving is the same as heading out with a knife or a gun after a few drinks - you might not be intending to kill or maim someone but the intent to look for trouble is there. If every drink driver was taken to court for driving a deadly weapon and there was a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for the same amount of time as they are presently banned for drink driving then I think we'd see a sharp decrease in the amount of drink driving. I hate the sneaking sympathy for drink drivers that is shown in this country.


  • #47
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    IM0 wrote: »
    the moral of the story? just as in nature, dont fcuk with a parent when they have their offspring around and feel threated..

    An 18 month old in the back seat of your car and an utterly langered, aggressive drunk driver, beligerently pursuing you off the road is not a good mix. My sympathies in this one are with the father of the infant, I don't think he belongs in mountjoy to be honest.


  • #48
    jblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭jblack


    IM0 wrote: »
    the moral of the story? just as in nature, dont fcuk with a parent when they have their offspring around and feel threated..

    Moral of the story is several lives are ruined in an instant. One stupid man gets jarred and drives home and acts like an arsehole, puts someone else in danger and then that person, totally disproportionately takes his life.

    I think it's tragic from all sides.

    Although I would think there should be culpability on the behalf of the wife if she knowingly let her husband drive home drunk all the time.


  • #49
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Morlar wrote: »
    An 18 month old in the back seat of your car and an utterly langered, aggressive drunk driver, beligerently pursuing you off the road is not a good mix. My sympathies in this one are with the father of the infant, I don't think he belongs in mountjoy to be honest.

    Well, the fact that he killed someone kind of means he does.


  • #50
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Logical Fallacy wrote: »
    Well, the fact that he killed someone kind of means he does.

    Context is everything.


  • #51
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Morlar wrote: »
    Context is everything.

    Not really. It wasn't really self defence. And even after he delivered his own brand of justice he was striking a defenseless man, in the head as he lay on the ground.

    So the guy gets off, no time to serve. What's the next thing that makes him snap? Do you really want this chap walking the streets just ticking away?

    Like i said earlier, don't **** with the life of someone's kid, which i imagine was this guys source of anger. But he still killed a guy. Actions have consequences.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Just to put into perspective the geography of where this happened, Irishtown Garda station is a short stroll away. Perhaps its the length of 2 football fields from the scene of the crime. I think the option was there for the defendant to go to the Garda station straight away when threatened by the drunk driver.


  • #53
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    up for anything wrote: »
    Fair enough, manslaughter if you want to be picky. For me though, drink driving is the same as heading out with a knife or a gun after a few drinks - you might not be intending to kill or maim someone but the intent to look for trouble is there. If every drink driver was taken to court for driving a deadly weapon and there was a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for the same amount of time as they are presently banned for drink driving then I think we'd see a sharp decrease in the amount of drink driving. I hate the sneaking sympathy for drink drivers that is shown in this country.

    I'm not being picky, the differnce between manslaughter and murder is enormous. I don't think any western country has a policy on drink driving like this. The punishment is supposed to be proportionate to the crime.


  • #54
    Tails142
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Tails142


    This new information from the courts today puts a whole new angle on this story.

    Just goes to show how much we base our opinions on the very poor reporting in these rags of newspapers.

    If the guy was blocked in by the dead guys car, it's almost self defence, I bet he felt physically threatened when he reached for the hurley.

    It takes two to tango in situations like this. It's not as if he beat him to death there and then either, the guy apparently went to hospital the next day complaining of headache and died several days later.


  • #55
    Ideo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭Ideo


    can't beleive this is the first i've heard about the deceased havin 10 pints in him. Did RTE deliberately omit this earlier because it's a fairly important point in the whole incident!


  • #56
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Logical Fallacy wrote: »
    ......Actions have consequences.

    The 'action' in this case being the decision to choose to drink 10 pints of guinness and threaten the safetly and well being of a 18 month old infant.

    My way of looking at this is simple :

    Party A - set out to get totally langered and he did. He chose not just to drink-drive his ass home, but to do so in a beligerent, aggressive manner, choosing to tailgate aggressively and abuse someone trying to mind their own business. Putting innocent people in fear of their safety.

    Party B - set out to drive his 18 month old infant home.

    If ever there was a case for a suspended sentence it's this one. There appear to be actual extenuating circumstances (& I don't mean in the normal way of suspended sentences which are the result of bull**** formula sob stories to judges about rough childhoods or drug abuse).


  • #57
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    So being drunk, stupid and in charge of a car can be fatal? Quelle suprise.

    To quote bill hicks "we've lost a moron"


  • #58
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    I'm interested to know what sentance he will get

    Could be quite small, pleading guilty will go in his favour as will the fact the drunk overtook him and boxed him in

    He'll get a sentance but I don't think it will be much at all
    I don't see suspended but it's possible


  • #59
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Morlar wrote: »
    The 'action' in this case being the decision to choose to drink 10 pints of guinness and threaten the safetly and well being of a 18 month old infant.

    My way of looking at this is simple :

    Party A - set out to get totally langered and he did not just drink-drive his ass home, he chose to do so in a beligerent, aggressive manner, choosing to tailgate aggressively and abuse someone trying to mind their own business.

    Party B - set out to drive his 18 month old infant home.

    If ever there was a case for a suspended sentence it's this one. There appear to be actual extenuating circumstances (& I don't mean in the normal way of suspended sentences which are the result of bull**** formula sob stories to judges about rough childhoods or drug abuse).

    So what? Party A deserves death lying in the street and Party B deserves a parade?

    Not a ****ing change.


  • #60
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    You'd think from these posts that the guy with the hurley bashed the other guy's brains in and left him for dead in the middle of the road. In fact, both drivers left the scene alive. He was just unlucky that there was some kind of intracranial bleeding and he didn't get to hospital in time. He died 4 days after the incident.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    jblack wrote: »
    Although I would think there should be culpability on the behalf of the wife if she knowingly let her husband drive home drunk all the time.

    Oh yeah she's responsible for a grown mans actions :rolleyes:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement