Student set alight in a nightclub, guy who did it gets 5-year sentence

shampoosuicide · 09-07-2015 01:19AM

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Irish logic - sure it was only a bit of craic:rolleyes:

not really what i'm saying, i've emphasized the stupidity of it throughout the thread. it's possible to feel sympathy for both, idk. it sounds like it's something that's weighed on his conscience. maybe i'm a 'vile scumbag' for thinking that? idk.

Gooners · 09-07-2015 01:20AM

Tombi! wrote: »

Both of them are students; I assume the poster feels sorry for the victim

Yes he says that BUT .........No buts about it.

The OP says this was a prank gone wrong. As if that makes it less than it would be otherwise. This was an adult who took a lighter to another person's clothes and tries to pass it off as a prank. FFS

This is on a par with a person who gets in a car drunk and hits a pedestrian. Is that a prank? Is that ok?

shampoosuicide · 09-07-2015 01:20AM

Deleted User wrote: »

He placed a lit flame against something that was VERY OBVIOUSLY flammable, what in the absolute f*ck did he foresee?

ok then, let's say what happened was exactly what he foresaw. why did he do it then? no motive, they were complete strangers. he'd have to be (a) a complete sociopath or (b) mentally ill, i don't really think he's either.

09-07-2015 01:22AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

not really what i'm saying, i've emphasized the stupidity of it throughout the thread. it's possible to feel sympathy for both, idk. it sounds like it's something that's weighed on his conscience. maybe i'm a 'vile scumbag' for thinking that? idk.

He doesn't deserve sympathy. He knowingly set someone on fire, causing burns over 75% of his body (just picture that, go on), ran, had to be convinced by his friends to turn himself in, and then denied doing it intentionally for a long time.

How does this not sound like a vile scumbag who should be locked up for the rest of his days?

Electric Sheep · 09-07-2015 01:22AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

not really what i'm saying, i've emphasized the stupidity of it throughout the thread. it's possible to feel sympathy for both, idk. it sounds like it's something that's weighed on his conscience. maybe i'm a 'vile scumbag' for thinking that? idk.

If it weighed on his conscience, it does not seem to have affected his academic performance - or his ability to give an apology until the last minute.

Tombi! · 09-07-2015 01:22AM

Gooners wrote: »

Yes he says that BUT .........No buts about it.

The OP says this was a prank gone wrong. As if that makes it less than it would be otherwise. This was an adult who took a lighter to another person's clothes and tries to pass it off as a prank. FFS

This is on a par with a person who gets in a car drunk and hits a pedestrian. Is that a prank? Is that ok?

Hey, I'm tired; I said "I assume". I'm not agreeing with the OP or anything.

Electric Sheep · 09-07-2015 01:23AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

ok then, let's say what happened was exactly what he foresaw. why did he do it then? no motive, they were complete strangers. he'd have to be (a) a complete sociopath or (b) mentally ill, i don't really think he's either.

I think he's definitely one or the other.

shampoosuicide · 09-07-2015 01:23AM

Gooners wrote: »

Yes he says that BUT .........No buts about it.

The OP says this was a prank gone wrong. As if that makes it less than it would be otherwise. This was an adult who took a lighter to another person's clothes and tries to pass it off as a prank. FFS

This is on a par with a person who gets in a car drunk and hits a pedestrian. Is that a prank? Is that ok?

it's not ok at all but people do it a lot(minus the hitting a pedestrian if they're lucky), so an interesting analogy.

Icemancometh · 09-07-2015 01:24AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

not really what i'm saying, i've emphasized the stupidity of it throughout the thread. it's possible to feel sympathy for both, idk. it sounds like it's something that's weighed on his conscience. maybe i'm a 'vile scumbag' for thinking that? idk.

Judging from the incredibly moving victim impact statement, the apparent lack of remorse seemed to be a large part of the victim's suffering. He referenced it several times, and noted the lack of any form of an apology. Also incredibly, the accused waited until the eleventh hour to admit culpability. You's think that if it was a "dumb prank" as has been suggested, then he would have tried to help, or at least done something other than run away. The act was appalling, but his behaviour after was equally reprehensible.

shampoosuicide · 09-07-2015 01:24AM

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I think he's definitely one or the other.

fair enough

hatrickpatrick · 09-07-2015 01:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Dealing is a non violent crime. You are having a giraffe.

Dealing in and of itself is indeed non violent. IF dealers commit specific violent crimes as well, then those are violent crimes. But many people go to jail for dealing even if they've never laid a hand on someone.

Gooners · 09-07-2015 01:28AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

it's not ok at all but people do it a lot(minus the hitting a pedestrian if they're lucky), so an interesting analogy.

So people doing it a lot makes it ok. And if they hit someone and that person screams in agony and is disfigured and is put in a coma and possibly cannot follow their career choice afterwards is it just bad luck because a lot of others did the same thing and nothing happened?

shampoosuicide · 09-07-2015 01:30AM

Gooners wrote: »

So people doing it a lot makes it ok. And if they hit someone and that person screams in agony and is disfigured and is put in a coma and possibly cannot follow their career choice afterwards is it just bad luck because a lot of others did the same thing and nothing happened?

'it's not ok at all' - literally the first 5 words of the post you're replying to.

RayM · 09-07-2015 01:38AM

If a person commits a crime when drunk, then their actions should automatically be considered premeditated. If you choose to drink alcohol, in the full knowledge that it makes you behave stupidly, then that decision should be treated as an aggravating factor in any subsequent crimes (whether serious or minor).

jjC123 · 09-07-2015 01:57AM

5 years for BURNING SOMEONE ALIVE is a joke.

And no apology until 3 years later? Fcuk him, 20 years wouldn't be enough, let alone 5.

Gooners · 09-07-2015 01:59AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

'it's not ok at all' - literally the first 5 words of the post you're replying to.

The first 5 words followed by the word BUT. When a person uses but in that context it almost always means some mitigating circumstances for what happened. Except in this case a lot of people don't do it. A lot of people so not take a lighter and set someone alight

Allyall · 09-07-2015 02:01AM

RayM wrote: »

If a person commits a crime when drunk, then their actions should automatically be considered premeditated. If you choose to drink alcohol, in the full knowledge that it makes you behave stupidly, then that decision should be treated as an aggravating factor in any subsequent crimes (whether serious or minor).

Then that would apply to everything, drunk or not.

foggy_lad · 09-07-2015 02:13AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

it's easy to underestimate people's stupidity - i don't think he foresaw him being engulfed in flames, no.

Can someone who is brainy explain to me how he would not have foreseen the result of his actions because my dopey mind fails to see it. This guy was intelligent and in the third year of a corporate law degree

Garda McHugh said the accused was a third year student at NUIG at the time, studying corporate law. He had gone on to do his LLB in UCC and
had just finished a Masters in Law in Trinity.

This person should be stripped of all his qualifications and barred for life from practising law or from working in any professional capacity.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Dealing in and of itself is indeed non violent. IF dealers commit specific violent crimes as well, then those are violent crimes. But many people go to jail for dealing even if they've never laid a hand on someone.

So dealing drugs that go on to kill people or are bought by violent people who rob shops and mug people to buy drugs is perfectly ok?

darkpagandeath · 09-07-2015 02:16AM

only 5 years for attempted murder ?

RayM · 09-07-2015 02:22AM

Allyall wrote: »

Then that would apply to everything, drunk or not.

Not really. Drink adds an extra layer of premeditation to a crime. The otherwise perfectly law-abiding 'model citizen' is fully aware that alcohol makes them behave badly, but decides to get drunk regardless. By drinking at all, they're effectively making a calculated decision to put their enjoyment ahead of other people's well-being.

Serious crime aside, people are generally far too tolerant of alcohol-related bad behaviour... not only violence and criminal damage, but also less serious offences like littering and noise pollution.

Nidgeweasel · 09-07-2015 02:23AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

ok then, let's say what happened was exactly what he foresaw. why did he do it then? no motive, they were complete strangers. he'd have to be (a) a complete sociopath or (b) mentally ill, i don't really think he's either.

A student, probably absolutely rotten, in Galway at Haloween.

"There's a buck covered in cotton wool, light abit of his costume there for the craic."

Clearly just a young lad, locked out his mind, that made a terribly stupid mistake which got drastically out of hand. Not mentally ill, not a sociopath- just young, full of beer and stupid.

Sad case. Two lives wrecked.

Nidgeweasel · 09-07-2015 02:24AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

only 5 years for attempted murder ?

Christ.

Allyall · 09-07-2015 02:28AM

RayM wrote: »

Not really. Drink adds an extra layer of premeditation to a crime. The otherwise perfectly law-abiding 'model citizen' is fully aware that alcohol makes them behave badly, but decides to get drunk regardless. By drinking at all, they're effectively making a calculated decision to put their enjoyment ahead of other people's well-being.

Serious crime aside, people are generally far too tolerant of alcohol-related bad behaviour... not only violence and criminal damage, but also less serious offences like littering and noise pollution.

Too much.
Anger adds an 'extra layer'
Sadness add an 'extra layer'

- Emotions can add an 'extra layer'.

It may not be the alcohol at all. The alcohol maybe accentuates it.

If you have a hard on against alcohol, then you probably won't make any fair points.

RayM · 09-07-2015 02:33AM

Allyall wrote: »

Too much.
Anger adds an 'extra layer'
Sadness add an 'extra layer'

- Emotions can add an 'extra layer'.

It may not be the alcohol at all. The alcohol maybe accentuates it.

If you have a hard on against alcohol, then you probably won't make any fair points.

I don't have a hard on against alcohol - I just have a raging soft-on for those who consume it in the full knowledge that their resultant actions may negatively affect others.

Electric Sheep · 09-07-2015 02:35AM

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

A student, probably absolutely rotten, in Galway at Haloween.

"There's a buck covered in cotton wool, light abit of his costume there for the craic."

Clearly just a young lad, locked out his mind, that made a terribly stupid mistake which got drastically out of hand. Not mentally ill, not a sociopath- just young, full of beer and stupid.

Sad case. Two lives wrecked.

I hope I never meet you in a Halloween nightclub party.

RayM · 09-07-2015 02:38AM

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I hope I never meet you in a Halloween nightclub party.

Let's not overreact now. Nobody got hurt... well, apart from the guy who did. Apart from the guy who lost 70% of his skin, ended up in an induced coma and suffered life-changing injuries, nobody got hurt. Bitta craic, like. Where's the harm?

Carlos Orange · 09-07-2015 02:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

He placed a lit flame against something that was VERY OBVIOUSLY flammable, what in the absolute f*ck did he foresee?

He probably didn't foresee that the home-made sheep costume had been made using highly flammable glue. He should have foreseen that trying to put someone on fire was going to end badly,perhaps not as badly as it did.

Allyall · 09-07-2015 02:44AM

RayM wrote: »

I don't have a hard on against alcohol - I just have a raging soft-on for those who consume it in the full knowledge that their resultant actions may negatively affect others.

But that doesn't mean that if they commit a crime (litter or fighting etc..) it should be considered pre-meditated..
You could apply that to somebody who leaves their house in a bad mood, or someone who drives after being upset.

RayM · 09-07-2015 02:49AM

Allyall wrote: »

But that doesn't mean that if they commit a crime (litter or fighting etc..) it should be considered pre-meditated..
You could apply that to somebody who leaves their house in a bad mood, or someone who drives after being upset.

Alcohol-related antisocial behaviour is a big enough problem in this country to justify making an example of perpetrators.

darkpagandeath · 09-07-2015 02:57AM

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

Christ.

Christ what ? What does one expect to happen when one lights a person on fire ? What is ones intention ? Unless one suffers from a severe mental impairment one can imagine the outcome.

Student set alight in a nightclub, guy who did it gets 5-year sentence

Comments