Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Man who knocked down burglar in court
Options
Comments
-
So you dont know what happened and cant give any evidence to prove it yet you see it as a valid stance to argue your point?
You can call it a presumption if you like it doesnt stop it however being completely false.
Macho vendetta? the man was defending his home from a scumbag and you call it a macho vendetta..the mind boggles.
The burglar was comitting a crime, got disturbed and ran. Crime ended. The homeowned drives after him and hits him with his car twice, this is a seperate crime. So how can you say he was defending his house when he was not in the vicinty of it. I would agree he got over zealous and took the tough guy stance instead of staying with his family and calling the cops. I'm not for one moment defending the burglar but can you really say the guy made the right decision in this situation. Two wrongs don't make a right.0 -
The burglar was comitting a crime, got disturbed and ran. Crime ended. The homeowned drives after him and hits him with his car twice, this is a seperate crime. So how can you say he was defending his house when he was not in the vicinty of it. I would agree he got over zealous and took the tough guy stance instead of staying with his family and calling the cops. I'm not for one moment defending the burglar but can you really say the guy made the right decision in this situation. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I disagree with pretty much everything in your post.
He was defending his home and his family by going after the scumbag that had been slithering around inside his home looking for whatever he could steal. He chased him trying to stop him by boxing him in with his car and the scumbag wouldnt stop so inadvertantly got hit by the mans car, this is what was presented as evidence to the court. By saying he simply went and hit him with his car you are taking an incredibly simplistic view of a complex and extraordinary chain of events.
To say that this was some macho vendetta is so far wide of the mark its frankly astounding, what are the facts..the scumbag was in the mans home..he couldnt be sure what he had taken..he couldnt be sure if the scumbag had taken some personal items of great sentimental value..he couldnt be sure if the guy would come back again..he couldnt be sure if the scumbag had been in his kids rooms..
If only more people reacted this way then the scumbags that think they are above the laws of the land might think twice.
Good on him.0 -
-
could he (the householder) now sue the scumbag for stress etc, given that he has had to pay the scum 175,000 in the other case??
I would hope so, and I would hope it would be a unanimous verdict for the householder
If he did sue it would not be a jury trial. In any case the decision would be for his insurance company who paid out the €175k.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »Well you are of course entitled to your opinions but I don't see how maiming a criminal makes you any better than them.
Everybody is better than a criminal.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is all true but it still doesn't give any scumbag the right to break into your house.You are excused.
I can't recall track-suit wearing "scumbags" having lumped this country with a debt of €400k per person, effectively driving tens of thousands of young people away every year, destroying hundreds of thousands of livlihoods.
FFS.
:rolleyes:
Maybe this verdict will send out the message to scumbags everywhere that the good people of Ireland are ready and able to fight back and that the law won't always be on their side.
Give that man a medal I say, well done!0 -
I disagree with pretty much everything in your post.
He was defending his home and his family by going after the scumbag that had been slithering around inside his home looking for whatever he could steal. He chased him trying to stop him by boxing him in with his car and the scumbag wouldnt stop so inadvertantly got hit by the mans car, this is what was presented as evidence to the court. By saying he simply went and hit him with his car you are taking an incredibly simplistic view of a complex and extraordinary chain of events.
To say that this was some macho vendetta is so far wide of the mark its frankly astounding, what are the facts..the scumbag was in the mans home..he couldnt be sure what he had taken..he couldnt be sure if the scumbag had taken some personal items of great sentimental value..he couldnt be sure if the guy would come back again..he couldnt be sure if the scumbag had been in his kids rooms..
If only more people reacted this way then the scumbags that think they are above the laws of the land might think twice.
Good on him.
I do agree with you somewhat, whether hitting him with the car was intentional or not, it was still assualt of some sort. What was he going to do after boxing him in, get out and give him a hiding or just take his stolen items back?
I still think the guy should of stayed at home and called the cops and help them with their inquiries.0 -
Nobody's saying it does. I'm just wishing that people could raise the same level of anger against the "scumbags" at the top, that's the point ... which is neither here nor there in the context of this thread.This is all true but it still doesn't give any scumbag the right to break into your house.
Maybe this verdict will send out the message to scumbags everywhere that the good people of Ireland are ready and able to fight back and that the law won't always be on their side.
Give that man a medal I say, well done!
Personally, I think the message is that it's perfectly reasonable behaviour to go tearing around the place in your jocks after someone who's wronged you, and to go running them down or trying to maim them.
Some of you may think this is grand, but I'm just waiting for someone to get seriously injured or killed doing something similar. Or done for murder - say a Central Criminal Court jury would be less forgiving than a local Circuit Court jury.
It's not reasonable behaviour in the slightest - even though it might make you feel good right now, not everyone who tries taking the law into their own hands will be so lucky.0 -
WELLAudreyHepburn wrote: »Well you are of course entitled to your opinions but I don't see how maiming a criminal makes you any better than them.
you go to bed after your days work providing for your family probably wondering will this economic situation get any better
Your wife wakes you up at 5am to see a scumbag with a screwdriver at the end of your bed in your own home and with your 3 young kids asleep in near by bedrooms :eek:
you jump out of bed with fright to protect your family and he runs away
you check that your family are ok
you call the guards
you pursue the scumbag in your car
while on the phone to the guards you apprehend said scumbag with your car breaking both of his legs
you are sued by scumbag
you are dragged through the courts by DPP for your actions, charged with reckless endangerment and assault causing harm
you are now left with a 6 figure sum for legal fees, increased insurance cost due to scumbag claim and not a great respect or trust of our legal system And probably will never be comfortable or secure in your own home ever again
on the other hand you break into and rob a house armed with a weapon while a family sleeps inside
you go into the bedrooms armed and stand in front of the sleeping homeowners
they wake up and you are chased and caught by home owner who breaks your legs
you sue him and win 175 grand
you don't have any legal fees as you cant pay income tax for breaking into family homes for a living
and this great legal system keeps giving you suspended sentences for your night time activities
Am I missing something here ?0 -
coconutlulz wrote: »AudreyHepburn wrote: »Well you are of course entitled to your opinions but I don't see how maiming a criminal makes you any better than them.
Don't you see?!
Working class idiot stuck in a perpetual state of no education and no hope in life; robs someone's house = scum who deserves to die.
Suit who runs over another person while blinded by vengeance = productive member of society who does not deserve to be charged, but instead needs a medal.
How do you know the intruder ever worked, he won't have to for a while thanks to his big 175 k pay day , the suit in the car on the other hand faces a six figure legal bill0 -
Advertisement
-
Nobody's saying it does. I'm just wishing that people could raise the same level of anger against the "scumbags" at the top, that's the point ... which is neither here nor there in the context of this thread.
Personally, I think the message is that it's perfectly reasonable behaviour to go tearing around the place in your jocks after someone who's wronged you, and to go running them down or trying to maim them.
.
This isnt what happened though as stated in court his intention was to block the guy from getting away.
What do the "scumbags" at the top have to do with this?
Im all for debate but your talking about completely different things here.0 -
The law is that you don't knock someone down twice with your car, the robber took advantage of that. It's nothing to do with this country being scumbag-friendly, it's just the law. The guy's anger is completely understandable and he was right to go after him - fair play on that score. But running him over with his car twice - too much to get away with. I'd find it worrying if the state said "The guy was robbing him, let him off". It was a disproportionate reaction, it wasn't even self defence.
The mitigating circumstances should be taken into account but I don't see anything wrong with the driver being in court. Hopefully the lowlife robber won't try that sh1t again.
Excellently put Dudess, some people on this thread don't seem to have any idea of cause and effect. I think if people really took a deep breath and thought about what the effect of what they are proposing is, they would realise that a society where you have carte blanche to go to town on anyone who breaks into your house, would create a society of people far worse than the junkies you all hate so much.
What the guy did was to seriously and savagely assault a person who wasn't (at that stage) any threat to himself or his family.
Of course we can all understand the guy's anger and a part of us would like to do the same. But the fact remains that breaking someone's legs with your car is a worse crime than burglary.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »
The home owner wasnt thinking about high minded ideals like being better than anyone , he was faced with a crisis situation and his instinct kicked in , society should be happy that he was made of strong stuff0 -
the biggest crime here is that this scumbag ended up financially better off than the person who he wronged in the first place.
There should be a law that states no compensation for anyone in the act of committing a crime.
Some scumbag fell through the rood of our local shop a few years back while robbing it and successfully sued the owner. The upshot was the shop owner would have been much better off had the little runt taken his fill as it cost him significant more due to increased premiums over the next few years than restocking would have.0 -
-
I know if someone broke into my house and threatened my family i'd probably do worse then mow the scumbag down with my car.
I'm delighted with this outcome.0 -
You are excused.
I can't recall track-suit wearing "scumbags" having lumped this country with a debt of €400k per person, effectively driving tens of thousands of young people away every year, destroying hundreds of thousands of livlihoods.
FFS.
:rolleyes:
Ah sure that makes them ok so - let them rob respectable hardworking people's homes as much as they like! sure theyre no doubt salt of the earth types who love their mammys.
Most people would think that scumbags of both the tracksuit and pinstripe suit hues should be severely punished.
Personally I would be in favour of the death penalty but thats never going to happen because the country/EU is polluted with excuse makers.
Maybe if a few Anglo bank directors were given the chair, the next batch of lads who wanted to borrow billions they had no hope of getting back, just so they could get their bonuses and commisions would take a more prudent approach....0 -
The fact that the homeowner was in the right until he ran the guy down, by the look of things.Am I missing something here ?
I would beg to differ - they aren't completely different things, they're all criminals who destroy lives, although their methods may differ. Only it seems that it's expected that we should be outaged about one kind, and apathetic about the other. Seeing as this story involves a property developer running a small-time criminal down with his Merc and being applauded for it, it seemed relevant to me. But, like I say, this is for another thread.This isnt what happened though as stated in court his intention was to block the guy from getting away.
What do the "scumbags" at the top have to do with this?
Im all for debate but your talking about completely different things here.
And I don't believe the "blocking" story for one second, any more than I'd believe the burglar if he said he'd sleepwalked into the place. If you hit someone with your car, you're at the very least reckless as to whether you do serious injury.0 -
Seeing as this story involves a property developer running a small-time criminal down with his Merc and being applauded for it, it seemed relevant to me. But, like I say, this is for another thread.
I understand that it's fashionable to hate property developers these days, but how is that in any way relevant?
If I woke up to some scum bag in my house, I guarantee you they would regret it. Your home is the once place that you absolutely, unquestionably should be allowed to feel safe and if someone enters without permission, they should certainly expect to be maimed for it.
I'm not even a violent person. Imagine if I had a temper.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Don't you see?!
Working class idiot stuck in a perpetual state of no education and no hope in life; robs someone's house = scum who deserves to die.
Suit who runs over another person while blinded by vengeance = productive member of society who does not deserve to be charged, but instead needs a medal.
how is he stuck in a perpetual state of no education there is free education in this country and he's been caught 32 times so i assume he's not caught every time so lets say he's caught 33% of the time then he's robbed 100 odd houses.
no one killed him they ran him down with a car to catch him0 -
Advertisement
-
Pfft, it sanctions the commital of a scumbag going into a persons house and BEDROOM WHILE THEY SLEEP and give him 175grand in damages! It was also mentioned he is a repeat offender ffs, how anyone can stand up for this guy is beyond me.
Aye he's a victim of the state alright.
I can't find any cases of people standing up for the burglar on this thread. Do you seriously think anyone actually thinks he was right to rob houses?
This is not a case where you have to take one side or another.
For example, I think burglary is wrong (who doesn't?) and I think the justice system failed in allowing a repeat offender to be free, and in awarding him such a large amount of damages.
But I also think that the homeowner was wrong to chase after the burglar in his car. That also is a crime, and though he can be somewhat excused due to his emotional state, I believe he should have received a minor punishment, as acquitting him sets a dangerous precedent.
Many people like the idea of citizens violently punishing criminals as it satisfies a primal instinct inside us, and gives us a sense of justice being done.
But I don't want to live in a society where people can mete out violent vigilante justice on the streets, and I think if people who support the homeowner's actions thought about the greater implications of being allowed to attack criminals in public, they'd feel the same way.
Talking about issues like this in a you're-with-us-or-against-us way stifles reasonable debate as it oversimplifies matters but also makes discussion more combative.
TL;DR: Two crimes were committed, two wrongs don't make a right, and the state shouldn't condone vigilantism.Everybody is better than a criminal.
That might be a comforting thought, but it's assuming a distinction between "regular people" and criminals, which is too simple. Any one of us might become a criminal at some point in the future: we can never say for certain that we won't.
Talking about criminals like they're some separate, lower species isn't helpful as it leads to some of the vitriol you can see on threads like this.0 -
The King of Moo wrote: »TL;DR: Two crimes were committed, two wrongs don't make a right, and the state shouldn't condone vigilantism.
Not condoning vandalism means you provide alternative protection for people in terms of policing/prison sentences etc. Since guys like him are allowed to break into people's homes as often as they like without any fear of the law, what do you expect from people living in the homes? When one of these repeat offenders whom the court systems refuse to prosecute comes visiting your home, are you just going to sit there with your valuables laid out at the foot of the bed saying "here, take it all and have a nice cup of tea while you're at it"? I don't like the idea of citizens taking the law into their own hands, but I don't see how you can expect anything else unless you start locking people up when they're caught for their crimes. With all the ire over the homeowner being acquited, has anyone noticed that the burglar still hasn't received a punishment from the State for breaking and entering?0 -
Not condoning vandalism means you provide alternative protection for people in terms of policing/prison sentences etc. Since guys like him are allowed to break into people's homes as often as they like without any fear of the law, what do you expect from people living in the homes? When one of these repeat offenders whom the court systems refuse to prosecute comes visiting your home, are you just going to sit there with your valuables laid out at the foot of the bed saying "here, take it all and have a nice cup of tea while you're at it"? I don't like the idea of citizens taking the law into their own hands, but I don't see how you can expect anything else unless you start locking people up when they're caught for their crimes. With all the ire over the homeowner being acquited, has anyone noticed that the burglar still hasn't received a punishment from the State for breaking and entering?
I still don't think public vigilantism is the way to go.
I don't think if someone is being burgled they should lay all their valuables on the floor. Of course not. While I don't recommend that most people take on criminals (I don't think most people would be as good at it as they seem to think), the law does allow one to use reasonable force against an intruder in your home. And I think any jury would be very lenient in terms of how they interpret reasonable force.
And personally, I think you should be allowed to use violence to defend your home and family.
But only inside your home.
Once violence against criminals in public places is acceptable, a very dangerous precedent is set.
Yes, the state failed in allowing this man to repeatedly go free and in not convicting him.
But when the state fails us, we don't take the law into our own hands. That road leads to violent chaos.
We petition the state to do its job better, because even though it's far from perfect, it's much better at policing and running the country than we are.
It's not as exciting as vigilantism, but it's the much saner and safer approach.0 -
Captain Darling wrote: »I know if someone broke into my house and threatened my family i'd probably do worse then mow the scumbag down with my car.
I'm delighted with this outcome.
Your comment seems somewhat contradictory. You appear to applaud the homeowner for his actions as you say you would do a lot worse to the thief, yet you are delighted that the homeowner was fined 175 grand.0 -
The King of Moo wrote: »I still don't think public vigilantism is the way to go.
I don't think if someone is being burgled they should lay all their valuables on the floor. Of course not. While I don't recommend that most people take on criminals (I don't think most people would be as good at it as they seem to think), the law does allow one to use reasonable force against an intruder in your home. And I think any jury would be very lenient in terms of how they interpret reasonable force.
And personally, I think you should be allowed to use violence to defend your home and family.
But only inside your home.
Once violence against criminals in public places is acceptable, a very dangerous precedent is set.
Yes, the state failed in allowing this man to repeatedly go free and in not convicting him.
But when the state fails us, we don't take the law into our own hands. That road leads to violent chaos.
We petition the state to do its job better, because even though it's far from perfect, it's much better at policing and running the country than we are.
It's not as exciting as vigilantism, but it's the much saner and safer approach.
See this I agree with. If the criminal has fled without harming anyone it is very hard to justify hunting them down with the intent to do them damage. Following them to detain them until the police arrive? That makes sense but is probably a little dangerous.
I do think beating seven shades of shíte out of someone who is still in your home is fine though.0 -
Every now and again I log onto boards and find a thread like this, which reminds me why I got the fuck out of Ireland, a complete fucking shithole of a country, flew to the other side of the planet and never looked back. I never find a thread that even starts to make me think that I made the wrong decision.0
-
One thing I will say is that any "scumbag " going up before a jury in Ireland today is not going to win .If that guy had gotten out of the car and cut ya mans head off with a machete after he broke his legs , all the jury will be focusing on is the fact that the burglar was in someones house armed with a screwdriver before the incident.
Its easier to comment on this case from reading about it in the media ..you sit in a jury stand for a couple of days and everything else about the case is passing you by apart from the fact that the guy sitting over there could have possibly broken into your house with your wife and children sleeping alone or you could have been asleep and your husband not present , left to defend yourself from this guy .The guy had been convicted of the offence so this was never in doubt.
Bottom line ..the homeowner was never going to be charged with this so you can rest easy if you find yourself in a situation regarding a burglar .0 -
Does anyone know the insurance company who gave this guy 175k?
I would just be curious what they use as a case on raising people's premiums this year would be when they hand over cash like this....
regardless of the different opinions- most people seem to agree that crime shouldn't pay- if you kill someone and are found guilty - then you don't benefit from the will.
If you rob someone and are hurt in the process- you should not benefit from your crime.
seeing as this case has got such press attention- maybe it is time for people to put pressure to get this law as a starting point...... I don't know what message it gives the scumbags - that they should actively antagonise householders when they break in- as will be more profitable than stealing a few laptops..... what happened to public policy decisions.....
I presume as he received his 175k before this case- that he is not entitled to free legal aid for his council in the case - and will not be in the future???... and any social welfare payments are being stopped.0 -
Oceanbunny wrote: »Does anyone know the insurance company who gave this guy 175k?
I would just be curious what they use as a case on raising people's premiums this year would be when they hand over cash like this....
regardless of the different opinions- most people seem to agree that crime shouldn't pay- if you kill someone and are found guilty - then you don't benefit from the will.
If you rob someone and are hurt in the process- you should not benefit from your crime.
seeing as this case has got such press attention- maybe it is time for people to put pressure to get this law as a starting point...... I don't know what message it gives the scumbags - that they should actively antagonise householders when they break in- as will be more profitable than stealing a few laptops..... what happened to public policy decisions.....
I presume as he received his 175k before this case- that he is not entitled to free legal aid for his council in the case - and will not be in the future???... and any social welfare payments are being stopped.
The man was not hurt while he was burgling the house but after the fact, while he was on a public road. There may have been a reduction in the amount paid because of the circumstances, but at the end of the day, the driver knocked him down and the insurance company had to pay for his injuries.
Public policy would have gone out the window once the man was no longer in the house. It was a road traffic accident where the driver was at fault. Pretty cut and dried in terms of insurance. And fighting it would have cost the company more in legal fees than in what they paid out and probably resulted in a loss. They know which cases to fight.
I've dealt with claims where the injured party was lying drunk on the middle of the road and was hit by a car and still awarded damages. Or children ran out in front of a car and they were injured and awarded damages.
Legally where it's car vs. pedestrian, the car is always in the wrong. Pedestrians always have the right of way, no matter what they happen to be doing at the time.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oceanbunny wrote: »Does anyone know the insurance company who gave this guy 175k?
I would just be curious what they use as a case on raising people's premiums this year would be when they hand over cash like this....
regardless of the different opinions- most people seem to agree that crime shouldn't pay- if you kill someone and are found guilty - then you don't benefit from the will.
If you rob someone and are hurt in the process- you should not benefit from your crime.
seeing as this case has got such press attention- maybe it is time for people to put pressure to get this law as a starting point...... I don't know what message it gives the scumbags - that they should actively antagonise householders when they break in- as will be more profitable than stealing a few laptops..... what happened to public policy decisions.....
I presume as he received his 175k before this case- that he is not entitled to free legal aid for his council in the case - and will not be in the future???... and any social welfare payments are being stopped.
The guy who got €175k was not on trial in this case. He was simply a witness. He would not have been represented. No legal aid issue would arise.0
Advertisement