Where's the justice?!!

golden lane · 08-06-2012 01:08AM

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Does this man not lose more than say a mere commoner, regardless of sentence. He's up til now good reputation tarnished, all those years devoted to academia could well be down the swany and to top it all off a 6 year suspended sentence...all because some drunken lout enraged him into a state of temporary insanity by pissing on his shoes...I think he's been punished enough imo.

Reverse the tables, some scumbag throws a drunk over a bridge for pissing on his shoes. What does the scumbag lose??? probably revered among his peers, same sentence would apply I imagine and we'd be here complaining about scumbags getting off too lightly. Bottom line, taking your willy out and pissing on another mans shoes is a bad idea.

did he aim to do it.....

xsiborg · 08-06-2012 01:09AM

the scumbags attempts to intimidate and humiliate the defendant backfired spectacularly, if more people like him were to stand up to these scumbags and "hard men", there'd be a lot less of them around to bother decent people who are making a valuable contribution to society.

the defendant saw red and snapped, and was entirely apologetic for his out of character behaviour. i understand where he was coming from at least.

where was the scumbag coming from that he thought it was ok to harass, intimidate, and humiliate an innocent civillian who was minding his own business?

jiltloop · 08-06-2012 01:09AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

Pissing on someone's shoes = throwing someone over a wall you know has a drop of at least eight feet behind it, apparently.

Welcome to After Hours, folks.

You're being overly dramatic there I think, just like the OP. The guy was clearly in the wrong but I still think the sentence is fair. It was a rush of blood to the head action. It wasn't a prolonged physical assault. To say it makes your blood boil and it's an injustice is frankly ridiculous.

Chucky the tree · 08-06-2012 01:14AM

The same judge in the garlic case.

My name is URL · 08-06-2012 01:15AM

He was awarded €10,000. That'll hardly even cover the guys medical bill will it? Like with everything else, it'll be us that end up paying for both of these idiots actions. The lecturer should be required to cover any future costs of providing medical care to the now permanently brain damaged scobe.

xsiborg · 08-06-2012 01:16AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

Pissing on someone's shoes = throwing someone over a wall you know has a drop of at least eight feet behind it, apparently.

Welcome to After Hours, folks.

humiliation = retribution, and about time too.

now im reminded of it, remember the thread here before where everybody congratulated a kid for pile-driving another kid into the ground after the kid "only gave him a few slaps".

you drive someone to that point that isnt normally within their character and you can guarantee they will react with excessive force because they want to show the bully that they will not let them humiliate them any more. it may not be "measured force", but the point is to overcome the bully and leave them in such a way that they are left incapable of tormenting you again.

Battered Mars Bar · 08-06-2012 01:22AM

golden lane wrote: »

did he aim to do it.....

Are you getting at the temporary insanity thing I said? Perhaps he did aim to do it but I doubt his actions could be premeditated rationally to any great extent. The shrug of the shoulders as an eye witness said speaks volumes to me.

yore · 08-06-2012 01:22AM

Fenian Army wrote: »

Its because he is a trinners lecturer, if he was some ordinary joe soap from tallaght he'd be behind bars.

As posted above, he's not on their system as staff.
[Mod] SNIP There's no need for singling the guy out on here.[/Mod]

The King of Moo · 08-06-2012 01:23AM

jiltloop wrote: »

You're being overly dramatic there I think, just like the OP. The guy was clearly in the wrong but I still think the sentence is fair. It was a rush of blood to the head action. It wasn't a prolonged physical assault. To say it makes your blood boil and it's an injustice is frankly ridiculous.

I'm just repeating what others are suggesting.

I think it's overly dramatic to suggest that one would fly into an uncontrollable rage upon having their shoes pissed upon.
This is Ireland and things like this probably happen all the time, yet we don't often hear about people suffering serious head injuries because of it.

But it's the all-too-common detached-from-reality response you find here when it comes "to scumbags."
"Just give me five minutes with them...hurr durr."

In reality, most people would not react as Mr. Whipple did, though they might like to think they would.
There's a big difference between pissing on someone's shoes and throwing someone down a drop of at least eight feet (which Whipple was aware of, according to the judge). That's not being overly dramatic: it's fact.

What Whipple did was a wildly disproportionate reaction to what happened. It was not an instinctive response. You don't throw someone over a wall in one single movement. It's a calculated act.

Anyone who seriously thinks he was justified in doing so, and that they'd do the same, is either quite deluded or incredibly violent.

Rasheed · 08-06-2012 01:28AM

Yanks. So dramatic!

jiltloop · 08-06-2012 01:35AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm just repeating what others are suggesting.

I think it's overly dramatic to suggest that one would fly into an uncontrollable rage upon having their shoes pissed upon.
This is Ireland and things like this probably happen all the time, yet we don't often hear about people suffering serious head injuries because of it.

But it's the all-too-common detached-from-reality response you find here when it comes "to scumbags."
"Just give me five minutes with them...hurr durr."

In reality, most people would not react as Mr. Whipple did, though they might like to think they would.
There's a big difference between pissing on someone's shoes and throwing someone down a drop of at least eight feet (which Whipple was aware of, according to the judge). That's not being overly dramatic: it's fact.

What Whipple did was a wildly disproportionate reaction to what happened. It was not an instinctive response. You don't throw someone over a wall in one single movement. It's a calculated act.

Anyone who seriously thinks he was justified in doing so, and that they'd do the same, is either quite deluded or incredibly violent.

That is really only the view of a few people here and one not shared by me. My main point is that I find the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood, completely over the top and more than a bit silly.

xsiborg · 08-06-2012 01:39AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm just repeating what others are suggesting.

I think it's overly dramatic to suggest that one would fly into an uncontrollable rage upon having their shoes pissed upon.
This is Ireland and things like this probably happen all the time, yet we don't often hear about people suffering serious head injuries because of it.

But it's the all-too-common detached-from-reality response you find here when it comes "to scumbags."
"Just give me five minutes with them...hurr durr."

In reality, most people would not react as Mr. Whipple did, though they might like to think they would.
There's a big difference between pissing on someone's shoes and throwing someone down a drop of at least eight feet (which Whipple was aware of, according to the judge). That's not being overly dramatic: it's fact.

What Whipple did was a wildly disproportionate reaction to what happened. It was not an instinctive response. You don't throw someone over a wall in one single movement. It's a calculated act.

Anyone who seriously thinks he was justified in doing so, and that they'd do the same, is either quite deluded or incredibly violent.

im not a violent person myself by any means, i've only lost my temper three times in my life, at 35 years of age, i have however endured plenty of intimidation and harrassment from ass-hats who thought they were clever or thought i would not retaliate. most of the time they were right, i didnt retaliate, and for the three that i did retaliate- no, i didnt leave them brain damaged, but i did in that moment want them dead. i wasnt thinking about the consequences of my actions or "teaching this scumbag a lesson", i just literally saw red and wanted them dead, that in my mind at that moment was the only way they were going to be stopped.

the same as the defendant in question- i was ashamed of myself and my actions afterwards because i saw it as i had lowered myself to the scumbags level.

The King of Moo · 08-06-2012 01:42AM

jiltloop wrote: »

That is really only the view of a few people here and one not shared by me. My main point is that I find the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood, completely over the top and more than a bit silly.

I honestly don't see how the following is baying for blood:

hairyprincess wrote: »

Sweet Jebus, this has seriously put my blood pressure up :mad:

tl;dr: Trinity student, now lecturer walks free after giving a guy a fractured skull, facial palsy, hearing loss, a broken pelvis and left him needing plastic surgery :mad:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/trinity-lecturer-avoids-jail-for-throwing-man-down-15ft-drop-554535.html

That sounds quite calm to me.
Man causes serious injuries to another, gets suspended sentence, OP feels angry.

In fact, if the case were about a member of the underclass causing such injuries to a drunk student who'd pissed on his shoes as a joke, I'm sure there'd be a few posters arguing that the OP's not baying for blood enough and that the guy should be executed.

xsiborg · 08-06-2012 01:52AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

In fact, if the case were about a member of the underclass causing such injuries to a drunk student who'd pissed on his shoes as a joke, I'm sure there'd be a few posters arguing that the OPs not baying for blood enough and that the guy should be executed.

you're honestly telling me you've never heard of drunken students on their way home from a night out, píssing on homeless people?

and who the HELL písses on someone's shoes "as a joke", sure why not spit in their face while they're at it, for the lulz like?

Princess Peach · 08-06-2012 01:54AM

Whipple is a funny name for a teacher.

hairyprincess · 08-06-2012 01:58AM

jiltloop wrote: »

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm just repeating what others are suggesting.

I think it's overly dramatic to suggest that one would fly into an uncontrollable rage upon having their shoes pissed upon.
This is Ireland and things like this probably happen all the time, yet we don't often hear about people suffering serious head injuries because of it.

But it's the all-too-common detached-from-reality response you find here when it comes "to scumbags."
"Just give me five minutes with them...hurr durr."

In reality, most people would not react as Mr. Whipple did, though they might like to think they would.
There's a big difference between pissing on someone's shoes and throwing someone down a drop of at least eight feet (which Whipple was aware of, according to the judge). That's not being overly dramatic: it's fact.

What Whipple did was a wildly disproportionate reaction to what happened. It was not an instinctive response. You don't throw someone over a wall in one single movement. It's a calculated act.

Anyone who seriously thinks he was justified in doing so, and that they'd do the same, is either quite deluded or incredibly violent.

That is really only the view of a few people here and one not shared by me. My main point is that I find the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood, completely over the top and more than a bit silly.

Hmmm, no definitely not baying for blood.

I am annoyed at the justice system that a man who is educated and high profile in the world of academia can get off so lightly.

He admitted that he knew there was an eight foot drop, I really don't think his retaliation was in any way appropriate. A kick in the balls our a punch to the nose would have sufficed.

The article states he has a child, I hope the child doesn't piss on him. They have a tendency to that at the most inopportune moments.

If Mr. Whipple had been ordered to take anger management classes I would be more accepting of his 'punishment'. But he wasn't. Nor did he offer any excuse for his unreasonable behaviour.

The King of Moo · 08-06-2012 02:02AM

xsiborg wrote: »

you're honestly telling me you've never heard of drunken students on their way home from a night out, píssing on homeless people?

I have. I said earlier that pissing on shoes/other things must be incredibly common in this country.

What I don't hear about often is people suffering serious injuries because of it.

Whipple's reaction was excessive, and even if it could be put down to a rush of blood to the head (which I don't buy in this case), I still think a suspended sentence is far too lenient, and I don't often call for harsher sentences, in general.
He knew the drop was at least eight feet, according to the judge, and even eight feet could be lethal.
It's a completely disproportionate response to someone pissing on his shoes and people just can't do things like that.

xsiborg wrote: »

and who the HELL písses on someone's shoes "as a joke", sure why not spit in their face while they're at it, for the lulz like?

As above, drunk students would be the most likely candidates, I'd say.

jiltloop · 08-06-2012 02:05AM

jiltloop wrote: »

That is really only the view of a few people here and one not shared by me. My main point is that I find the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood, completely over the top and more than a bit silly.

The King of Moo wrote: »

I honestly don't see how the following is baying the blood:

Please see the print in bold, I wasn't refering to the OP baying for blood. It's 2am I don't have the energy to be pointing out how you're misquoting me and deliberately bending what I'm saying to make it easier to argue against.

carbon nanotube · 08-06-2012 02:09AM

DB10 wrote: »

According to the Gardai report, it was an obvious drop, very clear to the defendant. So that doesn't cut it.

He should be sacked from his job at the very least. In fact I would deport him.

or line up a prank and have all the guys piss all over him as he enters a lecture one morning, and then casually zip up and be seated.

'morning sir'

The King of Moo · 08-06-2012 02:14AM

jiltloop wrote: »

Please see the print in bold, I wasn't refering to the OP baying for blood. It's 2am I don't have the energy to be pointing out how you're misquoting me and deliberately bending what I'm saying to make it easier to argue against.

I'm honestly not deliberately misquoting you.
The phrase "the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood" is ambiguous. It can mean that you think only the other posters are baying for blood, which I now assume you meant, or that the OP and the the other posters were baying for blood, which is what I think most people, including myself, would have taken it to mean.

jiltloop · 08-06-2012 02:16AM

hairyprincess wrote: »

Hmmm, no definitely not baying for blood.

I am annoyed at the justice system that a man who is educated and high profile in the world of academia can get off so lightly.

He admitted that he knew there was an eight foot drop, I really don't think his retaliation was in any way appropriate. A kick in the balls our a punch to the nose would have sufficed.

The article states he has a child, I hope the child doesn't piss on him. They have a tendency to that at the most inopportune moments.

If Mr. Whipple had been ordered to take anger management classes I would be more accepting of his 'punishment'. But he wasn't. Nor did he offer any excuse for his unreasonable behaviour.

Why should he need anger management classes? Are you afraid he's going to throw his child over a wall if it pisses on him? It was obviously an isolated incident and the guy doesn't have a history of problems with anger management. But you feel the need to imply that he's likely to be a danger to his child, maybe you don't feel safe with this guy loose on the streets of Dublin?

Seriously come off it! And I also fail to see your point about him being let off scot free because he's educated. How many times have we seen violent scumbags with a record aslong as their arm try to kick someone to death on the ground and get away with a suspended sentence only to kill someone a few months later?

This kind of thing goes on all the time yet you feel the need to single out one remorseful guy who did something out of character after being provoked, do you really think that this is such a big issue with all the remorseless violent scumbags who are roaming around out there on suspended sentences?

Some people need to get some perspective. There's alot more things out there that warrant your feelings of injustice more than this relatively inconsequential case.

jiltloop · 08-06-2012 02:19AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm honestly not deliberately misquoting you.
The phrase "the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood" is ambiguous. It can mean that you think only the other posters are baying for blood, which I now assume you meant, or that the OP and the the other posters were baying for blood, which is what I think most people, including myself, would have taken it to mean.

That's fair enough. I just can't understand how anyone could get worked up over this case. I can understand people feeling that the judge could have been slightly harsher and I could also understand people who believe it was a fair judgement, but to disagree in the extreme to the leniency of the judgement I really can't understand.

troposphere · 08-06-2012 02:23AM

Is there an open prison in Dublin? Maybe he could serve his 6 year suspended sentence in an open prison and save on rent like if he had run over and killed a guard.

WallyGUFC · 08-06-2012 02:25AM

hairyprincess wrote: »

At least Mr. Kennedy had the excuse that he was drunk, I think we're all guilty of stupid actions while under the influence. But what is Mr. Whipple's excuse? A sober, educated man?

I think the scumbag tag clearly belongs to him in this case.

Go away. Being drunk is no excuse for pissing on a fella's shoes. That's scum, pure and simple.

xsiborg · 08-06-2012 02:36AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

I have. I said earlier that pissing on shoes/other things must be incredibly common in this country.

What I don't hear about often is people suffering serious injuries because of it.

no, you dont, because usually the person being humiliated is too scared to retaliate in any sort of fashion, and the person intimidating them would have thought about this beforehand, hence why they would pick on someone they thought they could get away with humiliating, for nothing other than their own amusement.

The King of Moo wrote: »

Whipple's reaction was excessive, and even if it could be put down to a rush of blood to the head (which I don't buy in this case), I still think a suspended sentence is far too lenient, and I don't often call for harsher sentences, in general.
He knew the drop was at least eight feet, according to the judge, and even eight feet could be lethal.

yes i agree the defendants reaction was excessive, i get that you dont buy it was a rush of blood to the head, but if you read the article-

Mr Kennedy was seen on CCTV approaching people at the bus stop. He approached Whipple and another man and after some interaction, Whipple grabbed him by the groin and the neck and threw him over a railing.

entirely possible in one movement, without having given any thought to the consequences.

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's a completely disproportionate response to someone pissing on his shoes and people just can't do things like that.

what you dont seem to be grasping here moo is the humiliation factor of such an act. have a look at this-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/13/us-marines-identified-video-court-martial

it is a dehumanising and degrading act, intended to let the victim know as such that they are considered by the perpetrator to be the lowest of the low, that they are "unworthy" as a human being. yet you choose to make light of it.

i think a suspended sentence here was fair (in my own case. in one particular incident, i managed to keep my job because i was seen as an otherwise exemplary employee whereas the perpetrator was known to management and HR as a constant troublemaker, he also got to keep his job and got €16k in compensation for his injuries) as the judge saw that this was a one-off act of violence, and the defendant had shown remorse for his actions, there was no need to castigate him any further and remove him from his role as a contributing member of society, as opposed to his assailant who chose to go out and get drunk and then think it was ok to humiliate a complete stranger in such a fashion.

bottom line moo- the guy thought he could humiliate him and get away with it scott free, he thought wrong and paid dearly for his actions. he'll think twice again before inflicting his particular brand of humor on a complete stranger.

i wonder if mr. whipple had gone to the gardai and made a complaint against mr. kennedy, would his complaint have been taken seriously? i doubt the gardai would have even bothered to check the CCTV, and that is why i say i am glad that mr. whipple was given a suspended sentence and ordered to compensate his assailant to the tune of €10k, i doubt he will repeat his actions in the six years he is on probation, and had he not reacted the way he did, how many more times in that six years would mr. kennedy have thought it was acceptable behaviour to humiliate complete strangers for his own amusement?

John Doe1 · 08-06-2012 02:48AM

Go Trinity!

Gandhi · 08-06-2012 03:48AM

I can never have much sympathy for someone who takes a beating because he started a fight he couldn't handle. I do have some sympathy in this case because of the guy's injuries.

Whipple did overreact, but I can understand the leniency of the sentence. He made no attempt to weasel out of taking full responsibility. Even at the scene, he seemed remorseful.

If Kennedy had been minding his own business when Whipple came out of nowhere and threw him over a fence, then he would deserve a stiffer sentence, but that is not what happened. Whipple was a normally law-abiding guy with a clean record, who went too far fighting back against someone who attacked him.

Napper Hawkins · 08-06-2012 04:21AM

Long story short, boys and girls, a scumbag got his and will be out of action for the foreseeable future. **** him and all like him.

Mr. Whipple, for your awesome name and for your services to my country, I salute you.

Strange aswell, for all the negative crap directed at yanks on here....it took an American to do to one of our filth what the rest of us spineless cowards would never have the stones for.

Proper order, shame the prick wasn't killed imo.
Mod note, user banned for this gem

The King of Moo · 08-06-2012 08:20AM

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Long story short, boys and girls, a scumbag got his and will be out of action for the foreseeable future. **** him and all like him.

Mr. Whipple, for your awesome name and for your services to my country, I salute you.

Strange aswell, for all the negative crap directed at yanks on here....it took an American to do to one of our filth what the rest of us spineless cowards would never have the stones for.

Proper order, shame the prick wasn't killed imo.

Seriously?? People who piss on other people's shoes and annoy them a bit deserve to die a violent death?

You're making a lot of assumptions about Mr. Kennedy. How do you know he's some kind of hardened scumbag? "F**k him and all like him?"
If we executed all Irish people who got drunk and acted like dicks the place'd get pretty quiet pretty quickly.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 08-06-2012 09:06AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

If we executed all Irish people who got drunk and acted like dicks the place'd get pretty quiet pretty quickly.

and all the better for it

Where's the justice?!!

Comments