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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Man gives little scrote a smack of a hurl and gets 4 year sentence?

1234689

Comments

  • #252
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Boggles wrote: »
    Did he actually damage his car?

    That's kind of important you would think.

    Would it kill these court reporters to give just a little bit more detail?

    I posted same thing seconds after. In the grand scheme of things so. Even if he did the fact that the assault took place a considerable distance away meant it's pure assault and no mitigation. The 16 year old did swing the plank.


  • #253
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    The game is afoot.

    Babe Ruth did not previously spend time in jail for a knife crime unlike the guy with the Hurley.

    While Babe Ruth might have been 200+ lb good looks are in the eye of the beholder. ost men, even the greatest ladies' men, have particular "favorite types" of women, subjective turn-ons, and particular traits they especially like in the opposite sex. Ruth seemed unusual in his complete lack of this quality. Ruth just simply loved women- of all types, sizes, races, and personalities.

    Hardly a day passed during his baseball career (1914-1935) that he did not have sex with at least one woman. He liked women as much as baseball. Having no favorites, bedding tall women, short ones, fat ones, thin ones, beautiful knockouts, ugly rejects, socialites, film starlets, secretaries, other men's wives, and hookers in every big city in america.

    Ruth was a stallion in bed, once making love to a woman seven times in one night- and smoking a cigar between each encounter to boot. Ruth often went to the women's homes, but sometimes he called them up to his hotel.


    The issue in this case is not why the guy had a Hurley. It's that he couldn't control his temper even after spending time in prison for violence, took the Hurley, ran after a 16 year old and caved his skull in.

    Did anyone notice that the newspaper report stated 'he nominated the 16 year old for committing the criminal damage to his car'. Does anyone posting in favour of the Hurley guy have evidence that the 16 year old did it?

    :D

    I am totally disinterested in what Mr. Curtis did in the past, and am happy enough that Mr. McClelland got his comeuppance.

    It's probably unknowable, but a successful element of 'pour encourager les autres' would be the cherry on the cake.


  • #254
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    A lot of nonsense being posted here by Travis Bickle wannabes.
    I've some sympathy for the man but he's obviously got anger management issues and if it wasn't this assault it was only a matter of time before his switch flipped again and he hurt someone seriously (possibly someone posting here or your families.)

    I've lived in rough places and been threatened by young lads. The best thing to do is ignore them and act like you're not bothered.
    Grabbing a hurl and going outside is giving them exactly what they want.

    Having said that, even at that stage the young lads have obviously started to walk away.
    If he, having chased them off returns to the house and has a cup of tea with his Mam, then grand no major drama.
    He cannot be allowed to continue pursuing them then violently assault one of them.


  • #255
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    :D

    I am totally disinterested in what Mr. Curtis did in the past, and am happy enough that Mr. McClelland got his comeuppance.

    It's probably unknowable, but a successful element of 'pour encourager les autres' would be the cherry on the cake.

    Unfortunately while being disinterested in Mr Curtis past is your personal choice, the fact that a person who served a prison sentence previously for a violent crime and made a decision to commit a violent crime again is probably the most pertinent point in this case. A person who recommits an offense after a previous lengthy case shows someone who can't control his anger. What if the next time someone causes him to blow his fuse is when someone accidentally bumps into him.

    You said you are happy that Mr. mcClelland is happy he got his comeuppance. That is quite a radical thing to say when we know nothing about him and don't even know if he did the criminal damage that caused the fracas. I know you could argue that he swung s plank and missed but what is he supposed to do if someone is coming at him with a hurley. It is very difficult to miss someone while swinging a plank in close quarters and the fact he then ran away means he probably swung it to scare me Curtis and get a chance to run. So what comeuppance does he deserve. A fractured skull and permanent brain injury is deserved comeuppamce for what.

    As for pour encourager les autres' being a cherry on top, you do know that that phrase is uttered ironically and has the opposite meaning you espouse. And since when did physical violence ever deter future acts? If it did countries with death penalties would have no violent crime or countries where they cut off your hand for stealing would have no theft.


  • #256
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Unfortunately while being disinterested in Mr Curtis past is your personal choice, the fact that a person who served a prison sentence previously for a violent crime and made a decision to commit a violent crime again is probably the most pertinent point in this case.

    Total rubbish.
    A person who recommits an offense after a previous lengthy case shows someone who can't control his anger. What if the next time someone causes him to blow his fuse is when someone accidentally bumps into him.

    Whataboutery, irrelevant to this thread.
    You said you are happy that Mr. mcClelland is happy he got his comeuppance. That is quite a radical thing to say when we know nothing about him and don't even know if he did the criminal damage that caused the fracas. I know you could argue that he swung s plank and missed but what is he supposed to do if someone is coming at him with a hurley.

    Run, instead of picking up a plank. It's what you'd do, no ?
    It is very difficult to miss someone while swinging a plank in close quarters and the fact he then ran away means he probably swung it to scare me Curtis and get a chance to run. So what comeuppance does he deserve. A fractured skull and permanent brain injury is deserved comeuppamce for what.

    'Probably' ie you're constructing a story that you have provided no evidential basis for, just to reinforce your point of view.
    As for pour encourager les autres' being a cherry on top, you do know that that phrase is uttered ironically and has the opposite meaning you espouse.

    I didn't utter it ironically at all. I like to think that some of the scrote accomplices will get the message. I hope so.
    And since when did physical violence ever deter future acts? If it did countries with death penalties would have no violent crime or countries where they cut off your hand for stealing would have no theft.

    Is that you answering your own question ?


  • #257
    scamalert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Unfortunately while being disinterested in Mr Curtis past is your personal choice, the fact that a person who served a prison sentence previously for a violent crime and made a decision to commit a violent crime again is probably the most pertinent point in this case. A person who recommits an offense after a previous lengthy case shows someone who can't control his anger. What if the next time someone causes him to blow his fuse is when someone accidentally bumps into him.

    You said you are happy that Mr. mcClelland is happy he got his comeuppance. That is quite a radical thing to say when we know nothing about him and don't even know if he did the criminal damage that caused the fracas. I know you could argue that he swung s plank and missed but what is he supposed to do if someone is coming at him with a hurley. It is very difficult to miss someone while swinging a plank in close quarters and the fact he then ran away means he probably swung it to scare me Curtis and get a chance to run. So what comeuppance does he deserve. A fractured skull and permanent brain injury is deserved comeuppamce for what.

    As for pour encourager les autres' being a cherry on top, you do know that that phrase is uttered ironically and has the opposite meaning you espouse. And since when did physical violence ever deter future acts? If it did countries with death penalties would have no violent crime or countries where they cut off your hand for stealing would have no theft.
    One would have to have enough IQ at 16 to know that if your damaging someones property in front of them, and try to attack then run wasn't bright idea to begin with, so in retrospective minimal brain damage :cool: done really, just maybe rest of 20 ish scum will think twice about terrorizing people as law doesn't make impact on them.


  • #258
    str8talkingguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 201 ✭✭str8talkingguy


    I see sheep wrote: »
    A lot of nonsense being posted here by Travis Bickle wannabes.
    I've some sympathy for the man but he's obviously got anger management issues and if it wasn't this assault it was only a matter of time before his switch flipped again and he hurt someone seriously (possibly someone posting here or your families.)

    I've lived in rough places and been threatened by young lads. The best thing to do is ignore them and act like you're not bothered.
    Grabbing a hurl and going outside is giving them exactly what they want.

    Having said that, even at that stage the young lads have obviously started to walk away.
    If he, having chased them off returns to the house and has a cup of tea with his Mam, then grand no major drama.
    He cannot be allowed to continue pursuing them then violently assault one of them.

    How is it giving them exactly what they want?You think that kid wanted his head caved in?its giving them exactly what they don't want.

    Never understood this logic,for some people its the only option.If you don't defend yourself or your property things will often get worse,with no protection from the justice system its often the only option.


  • #259
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    str8talkingguy wrote: »
    How is it giving them exactly what they want?You think that kid wanted his head caved in?its giving them exactly what they don't want.

    Never understood this logic,for some people its the only option.If you don't defend yourself or your property things will often get worse,with no protection from the justice system its often the only option.

    if more kids understood that the penalty for damaging a car might be a hurl to the skull, they might think twice about being scrotes.


  • #260
    scamalert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    str8talkingguy wrote: »
    How is it giving them exactly what they want?You think that kid wanted his head caved in?its giving them exactly what they don't want.

    Never understood this logic,for some people its the only option.If you don't defend yourself or your property things will often get worse,with no protection from the justice system its often the only option.
    i think he meant, once one defended scum should moved on to key some other cars and plank some weaker person, that would thought them justice and life changing experience, since system works so great in prevention, that numbers keep rising and more are left afraid is sad reality.


  • #261
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    scamalert wrote: »
    One would have to have enough IQ at 16 to know that if your damaging someones property in front of them, and try to attack then run wasn't bright idea to begin with, so in retrospective minimal brain damage :cool: done really, just maybe rest of 20 ish scum will think twice about terrorizing people as law doesn't make impact on them.

    There is no evidence that the 16 year old did the damage.

    What is the definition of minimal brain damage?

    Where does it say anywhere that the 20 people were terrorising Mr. Curtis. That is quite a leap to make. Was any other damage to anyone's property done? Was any other reports of anti-social behaviour reported by other neighbours who didn't go out with a Hurley. Usually if terrorising occurs there is multiple reports and damage is not a single occurrence.

    So your conclusion is to disregard the law in favour of vigilante attacks and brain damage is acceptable.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    if more kids understood that the penalty for damaging a car might be a hurl to the skull, they might think twice about being scrotes.

    Is that the same as people understanding they will get the death penalty for murder will stop murdering taking place? It just doesn't work like that.


  • #263
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Unfortunately while being disinterested in Mr Curtis past is your personal choice, the fact that a person who served a prison sentence previously for a violent crime and made a decision to commit a violent crime again is probably the most pertinent point in this case. A person who recommits an offense after a previous lengthy case shows someone who can't control his anger. What if the next time someone causes him to blow his fuse is when someone accidentally bumps into him.

    I see no evidence in this case that the judges took his past into account. In fact it wasn’t mentioned in the report by the op. And not in any argument here for the first few pages.
    As for pour encourager les autres' being a cherry on top, you do know that that phrase is uttered ironically and has the opposite meaning you espouse. And since when did physical violence ever deter future acts? If it did countries with death penalties would have no violent crime or countries where they cut off your hand for stealing would have no theft.

    Threats of future violence or punishment by protection rackets do in fact deter local anti social behaviour, it’s not just protection from the rackteers themselves.

    The state has decided to not police low level criminality in working class areas ( 20 youths harassing the judge’s parents in a leafy suburb would find themselves in prison, however) and has surrendered its duty of protection to the powerless. Besides that it penalises anybody at a minor level who engages in supposed vigilantism but at the higher level of criminality it pays them off.

    The Irish legal system is corrupt to its core.


  • #264
    str8talkingguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 201 ✭✭str8talkingguy


    joeguevara wrote: »
    There is no evidence that the 16 year old did the damage.

    What is the definition of minimal brain damage?

    Where does it say anywhere that the 20 people were terrorising Mr. Curtis. That is quite a leap to make. Was any other damage to anyone's property done? Was any other reports of anti-social behaviour reported by other neighbours who didn't go out with a Hurley. Usually if terrorising occurs there is multiple reports and damage is not a single occurrence.

    So your conclusion is to disregard the law in favour of vigilante attacks and brain damage is acceptable.

    There is no law in this country to disregard,go spend a day or two in court see how it really works.

    Dress in a suit and tie no previous convictions respect the system and they throw the book at you.Come in with your tracksuit and runners on high five with the lawyers and guards and walk out with a slap on the wrist.

    There is just the illusion of justice you currently still believe in that illusion hopefully for you,you never see how it really works.


  • #265
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    str8talkingguy wrote: »
    How is it giving them exactly what they want?You think that kid wanted his head caved in?its giving them exactly what they don't want.

    Never understood this logic,for some people its the only option.If you don't defend yourself or your property things will often get worse,with no protection from the justice system its often the only option.

    Getting a rise out of someone is exactly what they want.

    It's never the only option.

    If that were so they'd be cases like this everyday.

    99% people can handle it without going straight to serious assault.

    In fact anyone who does this is showing real weakness.


  • #266
    Macdarack
    Registered Users Posts: 813 ✭✭✭Macdarack


    The only wrong here is the lad who swung the hurly got caught, I've no bother with a scumbag getting his skull smashed. I know a few scrotes I'd throw off a cliff if I knew I'd get away with it. Cops and the judges are wronging the right people in Ireland, they're supposed to f_€kin protect us.


  • #267
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    if more kids understood that the penalty for damaging a car might be a hurl to the skull, they might think twice about being scrotes.

    No, they'd just start carrying knives.

    If you're comparing damage to a car (a piece of metal) with nearly murdering a 16 year you're talking rubbish.

    It takes a coward to go straight for a weapon, if he was a real man he would have ignored them.


  • #268
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    I see sheep wrote: »
    Getting a rise out of someone is exactly what they want.

    It's never the only option.

    If that were so they'd be cases like this everyday.

    99% people can handle it without going straight to serious assault.

    In fact anyone who does this is showing real weakness.

    More accurately - 99% of people, including you, haven't the guts.


  • #269
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    str8talkingguy wrote: »
    There is no law in this country to disregard,go spend a day or two in court see how it really works.

    Dress in a suit and tie no previous convictions respect the system and they throw the book at you.Come in with your tracksuit and runners on high five with the lawyers and guards and walk out with a slap on the wrist.

    There is just the illusion of justice you currently still believe in that illusion hopefully for you,you never see how it really works.

    I worked as a criminal barrister for 10 years so am well aware of how things work. By your argument about having the book thrown at you if you dress in a suit and tie with no previous convictions would mean that our prisons would be full to the brim with people from good socio-economic backgrounds. The reality is that the majority of prisoners have never sat a state exam and over half leaving school by the age of 15.

    In those 10 years as a barrister I never once saw a client high five any lawyer. As a barrister you have no relationship with a client and are totally agnostic to whether they are convicted as long as you put forward the best case within the law. The idea of high fiving gardai is as far removed from the truth as can be. Why go to the bother of investigation if you are going to high five them on the way out.

    I have utter contempt for anyone who breaks the law. But I don't have an illusion of Justice. You have an illusion of suit wearing people being banged up carte blanche which is simply not true.


  • #270
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I worked as a criminal barrister for 10 years so am well aware of how things work. By your argument about having the book thrown at you if you dress in a suit and tie with no previous convictions would mean that our prisons would be full to the brim with people from good socio-economic backgrounds. The reality is that the majority of prisoners have never sat a state exam and over half leaving school by the age of 15.

    In those 10 years as a barrister I never once saw a client high five any lawyer. As a barrister you have no relationship with a client and are totally agnostic to whether they are convicted as long as you put forward the best case within the law. The idea of high fiving gardai is as far removed from the truth as can be. Why go to the bother of investigation if you are going to high five them on the way out.

    I have utter contempt for anyone who breaks the law. But I don't have an illusion of Justice. You have an illusion of suit wearing people being banged up carte blanche which is simply not true.

    This is just not believable.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    More accurately - 99% of people, including you, haven't the guts.

    It doesn't take guts to Chase a considerable distance and attack a 16 year old who may or may not have damaged your car.


  • #272
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    More accurately - 99% of people, including you, haven't the guts.

    :pac: yeah people who assault teenagers with a weapon, lots of guts.

    As I said above, it takes a coward to go for a weapon.

    If this was the US it'd be a gun and the like of you would be saying "Ah yeah he was right to blow his head off he scratched his car sur".

    Luckily laws still exist and aren't made by fools like you :).


  • #273
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    This is just not believable.

    If I was going to make up a profession I would come up with a much better one as a criminal barrister. Do you want my CV?


  • #274
    scamalert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    joeguevara wrote: »
    It doesn't take guts to Chase a considerable distance and attack a 16 year old who may or may not have damaged your car.
    before or after you get staked ?


  • #275
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    scamalert wrote: »
    before or after you get staked ?

    Staked?


  • #276
    scamalert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Staked?
    whatever word suits best for getting **** kicked out. As it does say attempt was made to hit the guy, so i wonder should he waited until hes down, or struck first - as that didn't happen ?


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    str8talkingguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 201 ✭✭str8talkingguy


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I worked as a criminal barrister for 10 years so am well aware of how things work. By your argument about having the book thrown at you if you dress in a suit and tie with no previous convictions would mean that our prisons would be full to the brim with people from good socio-economic backgrounds. The reality is that the majority of prisoners have never sat a state exam and over half leaving school by the age of 15.

    In those 10 years as a barrister I never once saw a client high five any lawyer. As a barrister you have no relationship with a client and are totally agnostic to whether they are convicted as long as you put forward the best case within the law. The idea of high fiving gardai is as far removed from the truth as can be. Why go to the bother of investigation if you are going to high five them on the way out.

    I have utter contempt for anyone who breaks the law. But I don't have an illusion of Justice. You have an illusion of suit wearing people being banged up carte blanche which is simply not true.

    Is this post simply to try and sway people who have never stood in a court into believing this.Literally every single day in court this happens,and i mean literally and i challenge anybody to go and spend one day in court and see that this is exactly how it works.


  • #278
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    THE MAN SHOULD GET A ****ING MEDAL


  • #279
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    scamalert wrote: »
    whatever word suits best for getting **** kicked out.

    It is rare that someone who may or may not have damaged your car runs a considerable distance away kicks the sh1t out of you.


  • #280
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    If I was going to make up a profession I would come up with a much better one as a criminal barrister. Do you want my CV?

    Not if you did it up yourself.

    Your spelling and syntax are more 'defendant' than 'barrister'.

    :D


  • #281
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    I see sheep wrote: »
    No, they'd just start carrying knives.

    If you're comparing damage to a car (a piece of metal) with nearly murdering a 16 year you're talking rubbish.

    It takes a coward to go straight for a weapon, if he was a real man he would have ignored them.

    just stand there and watch a bunch of young lads damage your car, come off it.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    str8talkingguy wrote: »
    Is this post simply to try and sway people who have never stood in a court into believing this.Literally every single day in court this happens,and i mean literally and i challenge anybody to go and spend one day in court and see that this is exactly how it works.

    See how what works? The statistics show the majority of prisoners have never sat a state exam and over half left school by 15. No convictions and a stable job are used as mitigating factors in sentencing.

    Can you show me one reportable case where someone in a suit and tie with no convictions received a harsher sentence than a 'tracksuit wearing skanger'.

    And do you honestly think barristers high five the same skangers?


  • #283
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    joeguevara wrote: »
    See how what works? The statistics show the majority of prisoners have never sat a state exam and over half left school by 15. No convictions and a stable job are used as mitigating factors in sentencing.

    Can you show me one reportable case where someone in a suit and tie with no convictions received a harsher sentence than a 'tracksuit wearing skanger'.

    And do you honestly think barristers high five the same skangers?

    the man who declared garlic as apples to the revenue got longer than most with double digit violent crime stats do.


  • #284
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    Not if you did it up yourself.

    Your spelling and syntax are more 'defendant' than 'barrister'.

    :D

    Didn't know I was being judged on spelling or syntax. Touch phone isn't my strong point but I'm a better talker than speller anyway.

    Your comment about defendant is obnoxious and uncalled for. I don't see what I said to provoke a personal insult.


  • #285
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    I see sheep wrote: »
    :pac: yeah people who assault teenagers with a weapon, lots of guts.

    Those 'teenagers' would smell the fear in you, and act accordingly.

    Would you then refuse the help of an 'adult' to save your weak self ?

    You would not.


  • #286
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    the man who declared garlic as apples to the revenue got longer than most with double digit violent crime stats do.

    The garlic case is brought up as a defense. The conviction was for multi million tax fraud and has different sentencing guidelines. Can you show me a tracksuit wearing skanger' who received a lesser sentence for multi million tax fraud.


  • #287
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    just stand there and watch a bunch of young lads damage your car, come off it.

    Any sane man, who isn't a thug, would walk outside and clear them off, without needing a weapon.


  • #288
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    joeguevara wrote: »
    The garlic case is brought up as a defense. The conviction was for multi million tax fraud and has different sentencing guidelines. Can you show me a tracksuit wearing skanger' who received a lesser sentence for multi million tax fraud.

    literally every high level drug dealer who isnt currently inside....


  • #289
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    Those 'teenagers' would smell the fear in you, and act accordingly.

    Would you then refuse the help of an 'adult' to save your weak self ?

    You would not.

    I have been in these situations but I'm secure enough in myself not to need a weapon.

    The only person 'smelling of fear' was the guilty party.


  • #290
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Didn't know I was being judged on spelling or syntax. Touch phone isn't my strong point but I'm a better talker than speller anyway.

    Your comment about defendant is obnoxious and uncalled for. I don't see what I said to provoke a personal insult.

    Are you honestly going to blame the touch phone for these crimes against the English language ?
    Was there no crimes committed when children were beaten with sticks? Does that extend also to giving teachers the power to use the leather like was prevalent in Christian Brothers schools?

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111500645&postcount=236
    Where does it say anywhere that the 20 people were terrorising Mr. Curtis. That is quite a leap to make. Was any other damage to anyone's property done? Was any other reports of anti-social behaviour reported by other neighbours who didn't go out with a Hurley. Usually if terrorising occurs there is multiple reports and damage is not a single occurrence.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111501655&postcount=262

    Go on out of that.

    :D


  • #291
    str8talkingguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 201 ✭✭str8talkingguy


    joeguevara wrote: »
    See how what works? The statistics show the majority of prisoners have never sat a state exam and over half left school by 15. No convictions and a stable job are used as mitigating factors in sentencing.

    Can you show me one reportable case where someone in a suit and tie with no convictions received a harsher sentence than a 'tracksuit wearing skanger'.

    And do you honestly think barristers high five the same skangers?

    If you are a Barrister you are being outright deceitful in all your posts,because i have seen the system at length and i know how it works.

    Lawyers and guards fist pumping the tracksuits with a string of convictions and they walk with a slap on the wrist.The honest guy with no convictions in the suit gets screwed every time.Every single day in court every single day it happens,so preach to people around here that were never in court.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    I see sheep wrote: »
    I have been in these situations but I'm secure enough in myself not to need a weapon.

    I see lamb.

    To the slaughter.


  • #293
    scamalert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    joeguevara wrote: »
    The garlic case is brought up as a defense. The conviction was for multi million tax fraud and has different sentencing guidelines. Can you show me a tracksuit wearing skanger' who received a lesser sentence for multi million tax fraud.
    a bit of irony in there, once state hurts sure lets use full force of law then :rolleyes: good to know at least those responsible for law make sure to cover themselves first.


  • #294
    sonic85
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭sonic85


    I never get this attitude of ah sure it's only a car or a piece of metal. Personally I'm in a poor job I don't earn much money but I worked long and hard to buy a car - not a great one but its mine. So i should just stand aside if some cnut decides he or she wants to knock a mirror off or break a window for the craic or because they're bored? What a fcuking world we live in.

    IMO property really should be considered an extension of one's self and if some scrote decides to steal or damage someone's property it should be classed as an attack on the person themselves. I would bet the people that have no problem with gangs of twats roaming around causing trouble are fairly affluent and if something they had was robbed or interfered with can just go and replace it on a whim.

    All these little fcukers causing hassle can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.


  • #295
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    sonic85 wrote: »
    I never get this attitude of ah sure it's only a car or a piece of metal. Personally I'm in a poor job I don't earn much money but I worked long and hard to buy a car - not a great one but its mine. So i should just stand aside if some cnut decides he or she wants to knock a mirror off or break a window for the craic or because they're bored? What a fcuking world we live in.

    It's people rationalising, and in a very sanctimonious way, their own meekness.


  • #296
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    I see lamb.

    To the slaughter.

    You're projecting your own fears onto me mate, don't worry about me I'm fine and have always been able to take care of myself.


  • #297
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    I see sheep wrote: »
    You're projecting your own fears onto me mate, don't worry about me I'm fine and have always been able to take care of myself.

    By running away.

    Hope it stays fine for you.


  • #298
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    It's people rationalising, and in a very sanctimonious way, their own meekness.

    Not being an total idiot, thug and lunatic isn't meekness.


  • #299
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    str8talkingguy wrote: »
    If you are a Barrister you are being outright deceitful in all your posts,because i have seen the system at length and i know how it works.

    Lawyers and guards fist pumping the tracksuits with a string of convictions and they walk with a slap on the wrist.The honest guy with no convictions in the suit gets screwed every time.Every single day in court every single day it happens,so preach to people around here that were never in court.

    Disagreeing with someone and offering your experience as an argument. Calling someone deceitful is obnoxious.

    I never saw the behaviour you posted and never did it myself and even if a case was won would never want to engage in what you describe as it's crass

    As for honest guy with no convictions getting screwed isn't borne out by facts. On a like for like case it is usually the opposite.


  • #300
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    By running away.

    Hope it stays fine for you.

    Yeah me too cheers.

    Who's running away? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    I see sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    sonic85 wrote: »
    I never get this attitude of ah sure it's only a car or a piece of metal. Personally I'm in a poor job I don't earn much money but I worked long and hard to buy a car - not a great one but its mine. So i should just stand aside if some cnut decides he or she wants to knock a mirror off or break a window for the craic or because they're bored? What a fcuking world we live in.

    IMO property really should be considered an extension of one's self and if some scrote decides to steal or damage someone's property it should be classed as an attack on the person themselves. I would bet the people that have no problem with gangs of twats roaming around causing trouble are fairly affluent and if something they had was robbed or interfered with can just go and replace it on a whim.

    All these little fcukers causing hassle can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not saying damaging a car doesn't matter but there has to be some perspective.

    Did you ever egg someone's house or something when you were a kid?

    Would the owner have been ok smashing your skull in if he caught you?

    People need to get a grip, snowflake is the word I think.


Advertisement