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

AngryDiMaria · 09-07-2015 09:14AM

He will only do 21 months the fcukin clown

conorhal · 09-07-2015 09:22AM

inforfun wrote: »

A prank is putting salt in the sugar shaker. Or unscrewing the lid of the salt shaker

Not setting someone on fire.

Just treat it like it is, attempted murder.

"i was drunk" and "it was a prank" used as an excuse should mean there are few years added to a sentence.

Indeed. With a drinking career that spans 24 years, at this point it's probably actually true that I've gone on the lash more times then that numpty has had hot dinners.
In all those countless of hours of messy inebriation I've somehow managed never to set anybody on fire, smash a bottle over a random persons head or punch anybody in the face.
I don't expect any applause for that fact of course, nor should anybody for managing to make it through life without deliberately maiming or seriously injuring sombody, or you know, not being a giant dick. So I've no real sympathy for the kind of person that imagines a couple of beers entitle him to act like a giant dick.

The firebug should have gotten 10 years and served 10 years.
He deserves to be in the kind of prison he's consigned his victim to, but this is Ireland and the victim is pretty much forgotten as soon as the 'justice system' rolls, which makes this case rather rare, probably because the victim was both brave and eloquent and has manage to place the impact of the perpetrators action front and center for once, rather then the afterthought it usually is.

languagenerd · 09-07-2015 09:23AM

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

Clearly just a young lad, locked out his mind, that made a terribly stupid mistake which got drastically out of hand.

Dropping a lit cigarette is a mistake. Knocking over a candle onto someone is a mistake. Approaching another human being, igniting a lighter and holding it to his clothing is not a mistake.

Seriously. He didn't even know the guy.

And if that's the sort if thing he considers a prank, or a good idea, drunk or not, then he is dangerous and should be locked up.

The Sun King · 09-07-2015 09:25AM

It seems you can do anything you want now and call it a prank. I'm surprised he didn't film it and upload it to YouTube.

Drink/Cameras absolve any responsibility for being a dick these days.

He could also have gone the social experiment route. -.-

bucketybuck · 09-07-2015 09:39AM

This little piggy wrote: »

He's not an idiot, he was studying law. I think even someone with a below-average IQ, no matter how drunk they were, would have to have had some foresight as to what happens if you set someone's clothes on fire.

I think its clear he had some drunken notion that the costume would burn a little, the victim would jump around a little beating at the flame and then it would go out and everybody would think it was great craic. There are hundreds of Youtube videos of people setting fire to their crotch or other hilarious antics, I have little doubt this guy put no more thought into it than that. He certainly didn't go out intending to maim anybody for life.

And I don't place too much emphasis on the lack of apology or admission of guilt. That will all have been on the advice of his solicitors, for various reasons.

So is the sentence too harsh? Well, no, it isn't. Just because I can understand how the incident happened doesn't mean I think the utter tool shouldn't suffer the consequences of his actions.

SILVAMAN · 09-07-2015 09:44AM

Beta Canis Majoris wrote: »

Should of got double the sentence, there's too many f**king pricks in society who don't think of the consequences of their stupidity.

Yes, and a slew of judges who have no idea of what goes on in the real world.

Diamond Doll · 09-07-2015 10:08AM

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Yes, and a slew of judges who have no idea of what goes on in the real world.

In the real world I live in, I think it's reasonable to expect I can go to a nightclub and not be set on fire at any point during the night.

Tigger · 09-07-2015 10:18AM

Cotton wool is incredibly flammable I very much doubt the offender realised how fast and how hot the fire would spread
I guess he would have thought that the cotton wool would have just caught a little bit and the man would jump and have to put it out
However cotton wool would have gone woosh
I feel sorry for both of them

ohnonotgmail · 09-07-2015 10:22AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

i wonder would it be fair to say that After Hours leans towards the right wing on issues of crime and punishment.

thinking that somebody who deliberately sets somebody on fire should be severely punished is right-wing now is it?

ohnonotgmail · 09-07-2015 10:23AM

Niemoj wrote: »

Absolutely awful, poor guys life will never be the same and all his attacker got was 5 meessily years?

That's not right.

less the 18 months suspended. less remission for good behaviour. so a lot less than 5 years in reality

Neyite · 09-07-2015 10:42AM

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.

Stupid is a massive understatement.

My three year old, who has only occasionally even seen an open fire, knows that fire is 'dangerous' and to be careful not to go too near a flame or he'll get hurt. He figured it out a year ago, and as much as my MammyPride would love to tell you he is some sort of Mensa genius, he's just an ordinary toddler with basic cop on for his age who knows you don't fcuk around with fire.

Anyone here old enough to remember Stardust or hear your parents on about it? This could have very easily been another Stardust, Halloween night is a massive night out in Galway, and every pub and club are packed.

When I was growing up there were heaps of public safety ads on RTE. Woefully scripted and acted, they are funny now. But there were three specific fire safety ones, described in this link. The man in this situation might be too young to remember them but their parents would have and drummed it into them. Everyone knows clothes are flammable, and particularly someone who owns a lighter and therefore smokes would have often put a fag burn in something they were wearing.

Sentence is about right as a minimum. His victim will be suffering and affected far longer than that though.

Egginacup · 09-07-2015 10:42AM

Tombi! wrote: »

Can someone please clear it up.
The fella that had the lighter, it says "he didn't mean to set the costume on fire" but then a little bit later says "he eventually accepted it was deliberate".

So does that mean he plead guilty and said he intended to set the person on fire but it took a while for him to admit it was intentional?

In Ireland the words "I didn't mean it" actually have no meaning. It's effectively a statement of "I regret getting caught" but isn't actually and apology or an admission of guilt. It's a sort of mealy-mouthed get-out clause.

A kid will punch another kid in the face or throw a stone through a window and when caught red-handed by a school teacher will immediately spit out "Sir, I didn't mean it"

There's a very slim possibility that the punch victim will duck just at the right moment or the stone will miss the window and hit the wall and that's what pricks use to absolve themselves from total guilt when the consequences of their actions do in fact have the expected result.

Likewise there was a slim possibility that this scumbag's lighter wouldn't make contact with the victim's clothing or that it would only singe it so when it burst into flames this maggot can say "Oh, I didn't mean it."

Riskymove · 09-07-2015 10:46AM

Egginacup wrote: »

Likewise there was a slim possibility that this scumbag's lighter wouldn't make contact with the victim's clothing or that it would only singe it so when it burst into flames this maggot can say "Oh, I didn't mean it."

In fairness I would accept that while he deliberately lit the costume he had no expectation of the result. That doesn't mean he isn't responsible.

In his mind he probably imagined the costume smoldering or starting to burn before he or others put it out. The nature of the materials led to a very different outcome.

While he is responsible for the consequences I actually doubt he deliberately wanted to injure the victim to the extent that occurred. It is this that "I didn't mean it" is relevant to

jimgoose · 09-07-2015 10:52AM

The Dumb is so strong in this one I'd say he should probably be sectioned indefinitely, for his own as well as other peoples' safety.

Irish Guitarist · 09-07-2015 10:58AM

How could anyone think that someone isn't going to burn if you set fire to them? I don't believe for a second he didn't realise the consequences of his actions. It was attempted murder and he got off lightly.

Egginacup · 09-07-2015 10:59AM

foggy_lad wrote: »

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

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

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?

You can connect would-be violence to just about any activity, legal or illegal. This stupid "there's no such thing as a victimless crime" statement is bullshit. If I illegally copy a music album some fool is going to scream "Oh, what about the artist whose music you've bootlegged? You've literally taken money out of his pocket. You've deprived his kids of food. There's blood on your hands now!!" ..fuck off out if it.

To address your drug scenario. Selling beer is legal but that beer can go on to kill people and be bought by violent people who rob shops and mug people and steal from family to buy drink.

The Sun King · 09-07-2015 11:35AM

Turns out I know the guy. Sounds about right, if memory serves me.

Nodin · 09-07-2015 11:40AM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

An absolutely horrible incident and feel so bad for the student, but does anyone feel a bit weird about the sentence? obviously just an incredibly dumb prank gone horrifically wrong. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/medical-student-describes-being-burnt-to-the-bone-in-galway-nightclub-attack-31363021.html

Ye'd have a point if the damage wasn't as bad, but the poor bastard was fried. Two fingers melted together, 75% burns......

Yer man got five years, with the last 18 months suspended. If he keeps his nose clean inside he'll be out relatively shortly.

bucketybuck · 09-07-2015 11:43AM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

How could anyone think that someone isn't going to burn if you set fire to them? I don't believe for a second he didn't realise the consequences of his actions. It was attempted murder and he got off lightly.

Rubbish. Like I said, there are literally hundreds of youtube videos of dumbasses setting things and people on fire, of pranks involving lighting a piece of clothing and then the laughs as others kick the guy in the balls putting the fire out. In the vast majority of them the end result is some singed hair and a few bruises.

Dumb as ****? Sure, and certainly not my type of humour but there they are, and it was inevitable that some tool would follow their lead without properly understanding what would actually happen.

Certainly this guy should suffer the consequences of his incredibly stupid actions, but there is little to be learned by pretending it was attempted murder. Face it, this kid did not decide he wanted to murder another kid he had never met in the middle of a crowded room.

JustTheOne · 09-07-2015 12:08PM

Idiot

Deserves more than 5 years.

Son Of A Vidic · 09-07-2015 12:15PM

It is miraculous that the victim survived the attacked and in my books, when you set someone on fire that is attempted murder. The scumbag should have received a life sentence and it's yet another reminder of the stupidity of judicial sentencing in this country.

Ken. · 09-07-2015 12:36PM

The victim wanted to be a paediatric surgeon. They make a lot of money. If it turns out that because of his injuries he ends up not being able to do that the other guy should be made to attempt to make up the difference of pay every year till the victim is retiring age. That way he'll not forget for the next 40+years what he did to that young man.

Riskymove · 09-07-2015 12:39PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The scumbag should have received a life sentence and it's yet another reminder of the stupidity of judicial sentencing in this country.

In this case the Judge can only sentence for the offence the guy was guilty of

The DPP did not charge him with attempted murder

VisibleGorilla · 09-07-2015 12:41PM

ken wrote: »

The victim wanted to be a paediatric surgeon. They make a lot of money. If it turns out that because of his injuries he ends up not being able to do that the other guy should be made to attempt to make up the difference of pay every year till the victim is retiring age. That way he'll not forget for the next 40+years what he did to that young man.

You cannot be serious? After Hours is very inventive of the punishments that people should receive, this is ridiculous.

frostyjacks · 09-07-2015 12:44PM

Riskymove wrote: »

In this case the Judge can only sentence for the offence the guy was guilty of

The DPP did not charge him with attempted murder

He should still have got the max punishment permissible though, 12 years. Even that is lenient when you look at the suffering he's inflicted on the victim.

Ken. · 09-07-2015 12:45PM

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

You cannot be serious? After Hours is very inventive of the punishments that people should receive, this is ridiculous.

I'm deadly serious. In 3 or so years the attacker will be able to resume his life and carry on. The victim will be reminded of that night every time he looks in the mirror or takes off his clothes. If I had my way I'd make it so the attacker had to carry a pic of the victims burnt body in his wallet so he sees and remembers what he did a few times a day.

inforfun · 09-07-2015 12:47PM

ken wrote: »

The victim wanted to be a paediatric surgeon. They make a lot of money. If it turns out that because of his injuries he ends up not being able to do that the other guy should be made to attempt to make up the difference of pay every year till the victim is retiring age. That way he'll not forget for the next 40+years what he did to that young man.

I wanted to be a professional footballer most of my youth. Didnt happen either.

You might have had a point if the victim was a surgeon before it happened and cant do his job any more.

frostyjacks · 09-07-2015 12:50PM

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

You cannot be serious? After Hours is very inventive of the punishments that people should receive, this is ridiculous.

It seems a perfectly reasonable proposition to me. He should be made pay all his medical bills as well. It's called being responsible for your actions.

ohnonotgmail · 09-07-2015 12:50PM

inforfun wrote: »

I wanted to be a professional footballer most of my youth. Didnt happen either.

You might have had a point if the victim was a surgeon before it happened and cant do his job any more.

he had a damn sight better chance of being a surgeon than you had of being a professional footballer. your comparison is flawed.

shockwave · 09-07-2015 12:51PM

JustTheOne wrote: »

Idiot

Deserves more than 5 years.

He'll probably only serve about 2 years and im sure mummy and daddy will send him off on a nice holiday to recover when he gets out.

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

Comments