Shopowner kicks dead aggressive customer - get's life for murder?

Monty Burnz · 06-12-2012 02:15PM

I do find it odd that he was done for murder. Those 3 D4 heads who kicked another guy to death outside Annabels some years ago only served a couple of years each. This guy gets life? Did he intend to kill the guy?

Funny thing is that next week some utter scum will probably get manslaughter for repeatedly knifing someone, out in 5 or 6 years.

06-12-2012 02:16PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

I didn't say we shouldn't question it, just that a lot of posters on here are happy to bleat on about how broken our justice system is whilst clearly having no clue as to how it actually works.

I do know how it works, it's full of people and people are selfish and self-interested.

El Weirdo · 06-12-2012 02:17PM

Super-Rush wrote: »

I have no issue with the sentence, none whatsoever.

My issue is that in the cases i linked to, the accused killed people in unprovoked attacked and were charged with manslaughter while this man was charged with murder.

Surely you don't think that is right.

On the face of it, and from the links provided, no I don't. But you have to remember that we are not possession of the complete facts of the cases in the same way that the courts and juries are.

Ficheall · 06-12-2012 02:19PM

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this case, but I'm a little surprised at the attitude that "the sentence must be the right one because the jury said so". I know that's how the law has to operate, but it doesn't mean your argument is iron-clad.
The jury are just people, and an awful lot of people are idiots or don't always do the right thing. The argument that " a group of politicians agreed X therefore it must be right" would be treated with the contempt it deserved, even though the politicians have the opportunity to be just as informed as some jury members, and moreover, many of the politicians would have been elected to make these decisions, rather than have had their names drawn from a hat like a jury.

My name is URL · 06-12-2012 02:20PM

Super-Rush wrote: »

I'm saying that its far too much of a coincidence that a non national who was attacked and then killed the man who attacked him gets charged with murder when Irish people get charged with manslaughter for unprovoked attacks on people.

The cases you mentioned had people been charged with manslaughter, but there are just as many in which Irish people have been charged with murder. And Chinese people have been convicted of manslaughter in this country too. It's too simplistic to compare a few hand picked cases with each other and arrive at the conclusion that race plays a major role in them.

Confirmation bias?

Reloc8 · 06-12-2012 02:21PM

aidan24326 wrote: »

It wasn't unanimous. 10-2 verdict.

My mistake - missed that.

dodderangler · 06-12-2012 02:21PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I do find it odd that he was done for murder. Those 3 D4 heads who kicked another guy to death outside Annabels some years ago only served a couple of years each. This guy gets life? Did he intend to kill the guy?

Funny thing is that next week some utter scum will probably get manslaughter for repeatedly knifing someone, out in 5 or 6 years.

That's true
Some scum will stab someone to death or shoot someone and get manslaughter somehow and get fcuk all of a sentence
Meanwhile il protect my home and family from a burglar and do him
Damage he lives but il get a few year sentence

06-12-2012 02:22PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

On the face of it, and from the links provided, no I don't. But you have to remember that we are not possession of the complete facts of the cases in the same way that the courts and juries are.

OK, let's say we accept that this case is a murder. Can you think of any factor to make one of those other cases and manslaughter rather than a murder? Any hypothetical at all?

unkel · 06-12-2012 02:22PM

humanji wrote: »

So the McNally case and this case are identical in every single detail, are they?

That's just silly. No 2 court cases are ever identical.

humanji wrote: »

Or is it possible that they're different cases that we aren't privy to the full details, but which the courts were?

We'll never have the full details of any court case. Does that mean we should never discuss anything about any court case? Or will we continue to do what we've always done - use the information that's available to us?

Going by what we know:

Nally deliberately killed his victim, yet was convicted of manslaughter only
Shopkeeper viciously attacked man who attacked him first, still he is convicted of murder

Both cases stink.

Super-Rush · 06-12-2012 02:27PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

On the face of it, and from the links provided, no I don't. But you have to remember that we are not possession of the complete facts of the cases in the same way that the courts and juries are.

Well lets take the facts we have in the case of the two lads who killed the teacher in Clare.

Limerick Circuit Criminal Court heard that Harry Dinan, who has 64 previous convictions, was on temporary release from prison at the time of the unlawful killing, while Kevin Dinan, who has 17 previous convictions, was on bail and awaiting sentence having pleaded guilty to a burglary charge.

Mr Casey was looking on at a scuffle with his hands in his pockets when he was caught off guard by a single severe “haymaker" punch inflicted by Harry Dinan at about midnight on St Stephen’s night on O’Connell Square

The blow from Harry Dinan broke Mr Casey’s jaw in two places and the Lissycasey man hit the ground with the back of his head.

He fractured his skull on impact with the ground and the court heard that Kevin Dinan then proceeded to punch Mr Casey repeatedly to the face and head while he lay prostrate on the ground. He never regained consciousness and died two days later.

Mr Justice McKechnie said the court had regard to the aggravating factors in the case, including the violence and gratuitous nature of the frontal assault carried out by Harry Dinan, who the court heard had some experience in professional boxing.

Mr Justice McKechnie said the evidence showed that Kevin Dinan had inflicted multiple blows on a defenceless person who was close to unconsciousness if not unconscious at the time.

The DPP had to appeal to get the sentence lengthened because the judge only took the first punch into consideration.

Grudaire · 06-12-2012 02:33PM

Hick1sfm wrote: »

Its not really the price is the issue. Its peoples lack of respect. If you own a business you dont want the likes of that individulal pissing all over it.

But he says this has been an ongoing issue.

Petrol stations dealt with people skipping paying by making the pumps prepaid.

Vending machines ask for money upfront. (And don't just have a jar left there so everyone can pay the correct amount on their honor)

Also when does it become the issue, if it was 50c? 10c? 1c?

06-12-2012 02:34PM

One less drunk/junk scumbag who thinks the world owes him everything, including free phone calls from a private business.

**** him, I hope the shop owner appeals and gets a reduced manslaughter charge. He went over the top, for sure, but that's what happens when you have to deal with people who face zero repercussions for their thieving and scumbag ways.

Grudaire · 06-12-2012 02:37PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

One less drunk/junk scumbag who thinks the world owes him everything, including free phone calls from a private business.

Had he not gone clean?

Disgusting post overall Rojo.

Monty Burnz · 06-12-2012 02:38PM

archer22 wrote: »

If he was so "lovely" what was he doing going around not paying in shops and throwing punches at shop owners!!.."lovely" yeah right.

Indeed. I'm not suggesting for a second that the guy deserved what happened to him, but he was almost certainly a career criminal for many years (to fund his drug habit) and it appears that he was attempting to rip off the shop owner and threw the first punch.

Reloc8 · 06-12-2012 02:39PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

One less drunk/junk scumbag who thinks the world owes him everything, including free phone calls from a private business.

**** him, I hope the shop owner appeals and gets a reduced manslaughter charge. He went over the top, for sure, but that's what happens when you have to deal with people who face zero repercussions for their thieving and scumbag ways.

So in essence summary execution by the aggrieved party in connection with a phone call is more or less justifiable or at least not such a big deal.

Internet hero to the nth degree.

Monty Burnz · 06-12-2012 02:39PM

Rascasse wrote: »

A lot of people mentioning intent. Unless Irish law is much different to the UK, intent to kill does not need to be proved for a murder conviction. This guy knew that by repeatedly kicking someone in the back of the head he was causing grievous bodily harm, therefore murder.

That makes perfect sense and is right: the problem I have is that we routinely see people who do things like this charged with lesser offences. Routinely.

Edit: the case linked by Super-Rush is a great example - in an unprovoked attack, punch a guy unconscious so that he falls on his skull with his hands in his pockets, continue punching him as he lies dying on the ground. Perpetrators: scum with dozens of convictions. Charge: manslaughter. Sentence: 4 or 5 years.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0626/1224318727499.html

Reloc8 · 06-12-2012 02:44PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That makes perfect sense and is right: the problem I have is that we routinely see people who do things like this charged with lesser offences. Routinely.

Correct, and the judge does not decide what charges a given person face. That's down to the DPP and/or gardai (DPP is directly involved in all homicide cases).

And one can safely assume that the office of the DPP is not routinely involved in trying to have persons who truly have a case to answer for a serious offence charged with lesser offences than are warranted by the evidence available to the prosecution.

Monty Burnz · 06-12-2012 02:47PM

Reloc8 wrote: »

And one can safely assume that the office of the DPP is not routinely involved in trying to have persons who truly have a case to answer for a serious offence charged with lesser offences than are warranted by the evidence available to the prosecution.

Why can we assume that? Why are lesser charges preferred so often, but not in this case?

(I acknowledge the one-punch principle was applied in the Dinan case, but that's a load of nonsense too - everyone knows that one punch can kill)

Grayson · 06-12-2012 02:48PM

Cliste wrote: »

Had he not gone clean?

Disgusting post overall Rojo.

As monty said, he tried to steal from a business and puncxhed a shop owner.
Did he deserve to die? no. But he was definitely scum.

Ficheall · 06-12-2012 02:49PM

Reloc8 wrote: »

And one can safely assume that the office of the DPP is not routinely involved in trying to have persons who truly have a case to answer for a serious offence charged with lesser offences than are warranted by the evidence available to the prosecution.

That sentence should be taken out and shot.

06-12-2012 02:49PM

Reloc8 wrote: »

So in essence summary execution by the aggrieved party in connection with a phone call is more or less justifiable or at least not such a big deal.

Internet hero to the nth degree.

Like I said, the shop owner was OTT. I wouldn't personally recommend summary executions outside your premises as a remedy for sorting out debts of 70 cent.

However, I can understand the reason that this guy snapped. When was the last time you were in Dublin City? So much scum causing so much unpleasantness, for everyone. And there is absolutely nothing done, these people walk around with impunity for the most part.

So yeah, internet hero all you like. I just prefer to stand up with those who are hardworking and respectful to others, as opposed to those who would rob you if they perceive you as weak.

Pompey Magnus · 06-12-2012 02:55PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I just prefer to stand up with those who are hardworking and respectful to others, as opposed to those who would rob you if they perceive you as weak.

The shop owner violently murdered a man on a busy Dublin street at 4pm, presumably with numerous men, women and children passing by. Yet you describe him as being respectful to others?

Rascasse · 06-12-2012 02:56PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That makes perfect sense and is right: the problem I have is that we routinely see people who do things like this charged with lesser offences. Routinely.

Edit: the case linked by Super-Rush is a great example - in an unprovoked attack, punch a guy unconscious so that he falls on his skull with his hands in his pockets, continue punching him as he lies dying on the ground. Perpetrators: scum with dozens of convictions. Charge: manslaughter. Sentence: 4 or 5 years.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0626/1224318727499.html

You can't compare that case to this as those guys were only charged with manslaughter. This guy was charged with murder and offered to plead guilty to manslaughter but the jury found that murder was proved.

The DPP would have had a reason to charge those two with manslaughter and not murder (and it wouldn't be because they're Irish).

Brain Stroking · 06-12-2012 02:57PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

and? This was in Ireland. Not China.

He had a right to fight back. But to keep kicking a man when he is down in the ground is murder. All over 70c.

Can you forward a copy of the judgment to me by pm? You seem to know the extent of the assault. Which of course is the crucial element to this case. Did he kick the guy twice or 50 times in the head?

I feel sorry for the shopkeeper to be honest. I (unfortunately) have to walk in that area on a daily basis and the junkies in that area are unreal. Simply unable to walk into any shop and not cause trouble. Some of the stuff you'd see in broad daylight in Dublin city centre is shocking and something needs to be done about them. They arent going to conform so i say move them somewhere, anywhere instead of in our city centre.

This junkie met the wrong compadre and paid the price. No real sympathy for him to be honest. There are repercussions to one's actions. Some of the scumbags shuffling around should hopefully heed that. And people shouldnt read too much into Victim Impact Statements (which i think are pointless) - of course his sister Jacinta and his daughter Destiny will miss him. Do we really need to know that Destiny will miss her daddy?

Monty Burnz · 06-12-2012 03:00PM

Rascasse wrote: »

You can't compare that case to this as those guys were only charged with manslaughter. This guy was charged with murder and offered to plead guilty to manslaughter but the jury found that murder was proved.

I can compare that case, because it's the DPP who prefers the charges. The question is why people who violently kill people are routinely charged with lesser charges than murder, is spite of this principle:

A lot of people mentioning intent. Unless Irish law is much different to the UK, intent to kill does not need to be proved for a murder conviction.

Rascasse wrote: »

The DPP would have had a reason to charge those two with manslaughter and not murder (and it wouldn't be because they're Irish).

I'd love to hear the explanation.

Reloc8 · 06-12-2012 03:02PM

Reloc8 wrote: »

Correct, and the judge does not decide what charges a given person face. That's down to the DPP and/or gardai (DPP is directly involved in all homicide cases).

And one can safely assume that the office of the DPP is not routinely involved in trying to have persons who truly have a case to answer for a serious offence charged with lesser offences than are warranted by the evidence available to the prosecution.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why can we assume that? Why are lesser charges preferred so often, but not in this case?

(I acknowledge the one-punch principle was applied in the Dinan case, but that's a load of nonsense too - everyone knows that one punch can kill)

Ficheall wrote: »

That sentence should be taken out and shot.

Ah come on lads.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN PRO-CRIMINAL SCANDAL

It has been revealed today that the DPP has been engaged in deliberately charging lesser offences than are merited on foot of garda investigations into serious crimes including homicides.

Over a number of years the office of the DPP, known to be infested by dozens of liberal hippy types who are highly sympathetic to the typical 'criminal scumbag' has been found to have engaged in deliberately charging persons likely to be guilty of murder with common assault, or, frequently nothing at all.

A source from within the office said 'Hey these guys are just misunderstood. Some times you read a file and its all killed him and raped her and its only after you sit back and reflect on the rights of the murderer-rapist that you realise he shouldn't be tried for anything except a couple of public order offences."

'Also the whole rapey-murder thing is really complicated', the source added.

Members of an Garda Siochana confirmed that they were 'OK' with the approach taken by the DPP, as it is frequently very upsetting for gardai to have to deal with murder trials, and in any event they have a great affinity for the offenders who they arrest, often forming bonds of friendship with murder suspects which last for years and make it unfair for gardaii to have to be involved in prosecuting them.

'The last murderer I dealt with is now godfather to my twins' said one member, who preferred not to be named as he was concerned that citizens who place an undue focus on law and order might bear a grudge against him or not understand how he could possibly take that view given that it is complete nonsense.

'Hang on a minute that fella shouldn't be in the bus lane' said the member.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions could not be contacted for comment, as all staff were engaged in a sponsored walk to fund plane tickets for those who wished to flee justice. 'If they could just get out of the country before they're charged none of this would be necessary' said one staff member, sporting a 'Love the Criminal, What Crime ?' T-Shirt, as he left.

Persons in fact convicted of murder are expected to raise questions in the dail through their elected representatives as to why they were selected for prosecution. It is understood that the decision-makers in an Garda Siochana and the Office of the DPP will generally have come to that decision having concluded that the people in question were 'no craic'.

Cienciano · 06-12-2012 03:04PM

To add to the list of idiotic manslaughter cases, here's one:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/the-monks-nephew-gets-10-years-for-killing-146470.html

If you google the incident, there was a fight between 2 groups of 2 men, the 2 scumbags went home, got knifes, came back and stabbed the 2 guys they got in a fight with.
If you google Derek Hutch (monks nephew) he has 39 previous convictions (serious ones - armed robbery, running a motorcycle theft ring, caught with a silenced pistol with the serial filed off and a bullet in the chamber etc, etc,). He also lied in court to make out that he was attacked.
Some people reckon killing someone by kicking them in the head is automaticly murder. But far far worse is imho is stabbing someone.

06-12-2012 03:05PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The shop owner violently murdered a man on a busy Dublin street at 4pm, presumably with numerous men, women and children passing by. Yet you describe him as being respectful to others?

You seem to be viewing this Chinese guy as some sort of marauding lunatic just out for his next victim. He's a small businessman who got pushed to breaking point by repeatedly being shat on by junks and drunks, who stalk the area with impunity (as I have already pointed out).

How much respect would you have for someone who not only stole from you, but punched you in the face when you caught them? :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz · 06-12-2012 03:09PM

Reloc8 wrote: »

Ah come on lads.

Full marks for effort, but it doesn't explain an apparent disparity in the charges that are preferred in different cases.

An obvious possibility is that it's just a lot easier to prove manslaughter and it will save them a lot of time and effort in preparing a murder case that they reckon they have a less than 50% chance of winning.

Monty Burnz · 06-12-2012 03:13PM

Cienciano wrote: »

To add to the list of idiotic manslaughter cases, here's one:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/the-monks-nephew-gets-10-years-for-killing-146470.html

If you google the incident, there was a fight between 2 groups of 2 men, the 2 scumbags went home, got knifes, came back and stabbed the 2 guys they got in a fight with.
If you google Derek Hutch (monks nephew) he has 39 previous convictions (serious ones - armed robbery, running a motorcycle theft ring, caught with a silenced pistol with the serial filed off and a bullet in the chamber etc, etc,). He also lied in court to make out that he was attacked.
Some people reckon killing someone by kicking them in the head is automaticly murder. But far far worse is imho is stabbing someone.

Wow, you couldn't make this stuff up:

A NEPHEW of one of Dublin’s most notorious criminals has received a 10-year sentence for killing a Co Meath man and causing serious harm to another over three years ago on St Stephen’s day.

Derek ‘Del Boy’ Hutch will serve six years in jail for the manslaughter of 23-year-old Barry Maguire, after Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy suspended four years of his sentence to "keep light at the end of the tunnel" and ensure "the business of sentencing" was not about "locking someone up and throwing away the key".

Hutch, a nephew of Gerry ‘The Monk’ Hutch, had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of the young carpenter in the early hours of December 26, 2007 at Milltown Estate in Ashbourne.

Mr Maguire, who was from the Deerpark estate in Ashbourne, died having being stabbed in the back yard away from Ashbourne garda station and just hours after spending a traditional Christmas with his family.

He suffered a single knife wound, which penetrated his heart and chest, after going to the aid of a group of his friends involved in an altercation with Hutch and Donohue at the entrance to the Milltown estate.

Mr Justice McCarthy also imposed a concurrent six-year sentence on Hutch, who has 39 previous convictions, for causing serious harm to Mr Carty.

He said the cumulative six-year term would run consecutively to sentences totalling 10 years Hutch is currently serving for possession of a silenced semi-automatic pistol and for his involvement in a high-powered motorcycle theft ring.

Mr Justice McCarthy said that the circumstances which led to the manslaughter, where Hutch and Donohue returned to the house in Ashdale Crescent and procured knives after a scuffle broke out between Hutch and a group of people including Mr Carty and friends of Mr Maguire, was a significant aggravating factor in the case.

Any comment from the folks who reckon the system works just fine, and this case merited a 6-year term (minus 25% remission) while the Chinese lad got life?

Shopowner kicks dead aggressive customer - get's life for murder?

Comments