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?

12345679»

Comments

  • #402
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    I don't care whether it was gang warfare or not.

    I don't care whether Mr. Curtis had previous convictions or not.

    I see him in the same light as I see Pádraig Nally, or Tony Martin.

    A job worth doing, and a job well done.

    But that makes no sense. You must care that the level of provocation is enough to justify an attack. If you don't then where do you draw the line on what you can do?

    Nally was subjected to months of abuse and was in fear of his life before he took the matter into his own hands. If you see this person in the same light then you are making light of the Nally situation and allow anyone to attempt to kill a person without having a line that needs to be crossed.

    How can you also not care that he had no previous convictions?

    Argue all you want but at the end of the day the Court of Appeal extended the sentence.


  • #403
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    But that makes no sense. You must care that the level of provocation is enough to justify an attack. If you don't then where do you draw the line on what you can do?

    I only care that the little shít got what he deserved.

    I'm not in the slightest bit interested in academic discussions about 'reasonable force', or whatever.

    Just enjoying the comeuppance-ness of it all.
    Nally was subjected to months of abuse and was in fear of his life before he took the matter into his own hands. If you see this person in the same light then you are making light of the Nally situation and allow anyone to attempt to kill a person without having a line that needs to be crossed.

    Again, you are straining at the leash to appear clever about all this. My point in making the comparison is simply that the victims of Nally, Martin, and Curtis all got what was coming to them. Their punk hubris bit them on the hole.

    It is worth reminding ourselves too that the three men in question all did/are doing time. So the whole panic about vigilantism leading to a breakdown in the social order is crap. Firstly, the social order is broken anyway; and secondly, the state does not want to punish vigilantism because it sometimes goes too far, but rather because the state wants for itself the monopoly on force.

    All fine and well until they structurally fail to protect people and their property. Which they are doing.
    How can you also not care that he had no previous convictions?

    Because it's irrelevant to my concerns.
    Argue all you want but at the end of the day the Court of Appeal extended the sentence.

    I don't care. I haven't argued about that.


  • #404
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    I only care that the little shít got what he deserve.

    I'm not in the slightest bit interested in academic discussions about 'reasonable force', or whatever.

    Just enjoying the comeuppance-ness of it all.



    Again, you are straining at the leash to appear clever about all this. My point in making the comparison is simply that the victims of Nally, Martin, and Curtis all got what was coming to them. Their punk hubris bit them on the hole.

    It is worth reminding ourselves too that the three men in question all did/are doing time. So the whole panic about vigilantism leading to a breakdown in the social order is crap. Firstly, the social order is broken anyway; and secondly, the state does not want to punish vigilantism because it sometimes goes too far, but rather because the state wants for itself the monopoly on force.

    All fine and well until they structurally fail to protect people and their property. Which they are doing.



    Because it's irrelevant to my concerns.



    I don't care. I haven't argued about that.

    But my point is how do you know he got what he deserved. Is there any facts to state that he was the person who caused the damage and was not just nominated. It really could have been a case of mistaken identity and wrong place wrong time.

    I am not straining at the leash to 'appear clever'. My point is the victim of Nally, subjected him to months of abuse and put him in fear of his life. He got what was coming to him because at the end of the day the punishment fit the crime. But in this instance the punishment did not fit the crime. By your reasoning, do a bit of loitering and/or break a window means you deserve to get a hurley to the head.

    Previous convictions are irrelevant to your concerns means you are refusing to take into account that someone who has a history of violent behaviour and has been imprisoned for his short fuse may not have the emotional tools to determine whether he can take the law into his own hands in a case like this.


  • #405
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    But my point is how do you know he got what he deserved. Is there any facts to state that he was the person who caused the damage and was not just nominated. It really could have been a case of mistaken identity and wrong place wrong time.

    It was definitely 'wrong place, wrong time'. I don't know, any more than you know that it was the damage to the car that motivated Mr. Curtis to go the extra mile. It may have been the sight of a weapon ( the plank ). Are we disputing the identity of that individual ?
    I am not straining at the leash to 'appear clever'. My point is the victim of Nally, subjected him to months of abuse and put him in fear of his life. He got what was coming to him because at the end of the day the punishment fit the crime.

    Ah, so now you are the arbiter of when people get what they deserve. You set the boundaries. Tell us what they are ?
    But in this instance the punishment did not fit the crime. By your reasoning, do a bit of loitering and/or break a window means you deserve to get a hurley to the head.

    As I said, you do not know that the motivation you attribute is the correct one.

    You do not know that it could be the wielding of a weapon, or that it could be frustration that his mother's house was the target of dozens of petty incidents that can really accumulate and affect a person - maybe especially an older person - and their quality of life is destroyed.

    You simply do not know, yet you persist with the 'car damage' angle.
    Previous convictions are irrelevant to your concerns means you are refusing to take into account that someone who has a history of violent behaviour and has been imprisoned for his short fuse may not have the emotional tools to determine whether he can take the law into his own hands in a case like this.

    Well, we know he 'can't' take the law into his own hands since he's banged up.

    Yet we also know that he 'can' take the law into is own hands, since one plank-wielding plank is out of commission.

    I'll take it.


  • #406
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    It was definitely 'wrong place, wrong time'. I don't know, any more than you know that it was the damage to the car that motivated Mr. Curtis to go the extra mile. It may have been the sight of a weapon ( the plank ). Are we disputing the identity of that individual ?



    Ah, so now you are the arbiter of when people get what they deserve. You set the boundaries. Tell us what they are ?



    As I said, you do not know that the motivation you attribute is the correct one.

    You do not know that it could be the wielding of a weapon, or that it could be frustration that his mother's house was the target of dozens of petty incidents that can really accumulate and affect a person - maybe especially an older person - and their quality of life is destroyed.

    You simply do not know, yet you persist with the 'car damage' angle.



    Well, we know he 'can't' take the law into his own hands since he's banged up.

    Yet we also know that he 'can' take the law into is own hands, since one plank-wielding plank is out of commission.

    I'll take it.

    That is a well reasoned post.

    With regard to the plank, it is highly possible that it was picked up as someone in a rage came towards him with a hurley. If he didnt damage the car, he was an innocent person who is entitled to defend himself.

    There is no evidence that his mother's house was the target of of dozens of petty incidents that can really accumulate and affect a person. You raised this and not me. How is acceptable for you to determine possibilities but I seem to not be given the same latitude.

    If a person is in fear for his life then they are entitled to use whatever reasonable means are afforded to them to displace that fear. That is in essence why Nally was found not guilty. He only was imprisoned in the first trial because the judge erred in his direction and gave the jury no option but to find guilty.

    Your last line, while an amusing play on words, is the root of what my position is. We simply do not know that the person out of commission deserved to be.


  • #407
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    CinemaGuy45 wrote: »
    Kid is a total scumbag he was using a weapon and missed he got a bang of a Hurley and a fractured skull that sounds totally fair to me.

    Surely death would have been fair by that logic? Or where do you draw the line, how much damage was it fair to cause? Could he have killed him fairly?


  • #408
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    That is a well reasoned post.

    With regard to the plank, it is highly possible that it was picked up as someone in a rage came towards him with a hurley.

    Possible. A lot of people who are horrified by the outcome would suggest he would have been better off running, rather than shaping.

    The possibility you suggest here is one of a number, though this is the one suits your general need to 'convict'. I don't think that is coincidental.
    If he didnt damage the car, he was an innocent person who is entitled to defend himself.

    If. Maybe.

    Guilty by association, definitely.
    There is no evidence that his mother's house was the target of of dozens of petty incidents that can really accumulate and affect a person. You raised this and not me. How is acceptable for you to determine possibilities but I seem to not be given the same latitude.

    I am offerering possibilities, not building a case out of one to the exclusion of many others.
    If a person is in fear for his life then they are entitled to use whatever reasonable means are afforded to them to displace that fear. That is in essence why Nally was found not guilty. He only was imprisoned in the first trial because the judge erred in his direction and gave the jury no option but to find guilty.

    Your last line, while an amusing play on words, is the root of what my position is. We simply do not know that the person out of commission deserved to be.

    Ergo, we should not dismiss out of hand that he got what he deserved, even by your own standards. Have you allowed that ?

    I, on the other hand, am using different criteria and hunches.

    We may as well be speaking different languages, in a way.


  • #409
    CinemaGuy45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭CinemaGuy45


    8-10 wrote: »
    Surely death would have been fair by that logic? Or where do you draw the line, how much damage was it fair to cause? Could he have killed him fairly?

    Where do I draw the line? to be honest I don't if he died I would laugh in the face of his grieving parents and let all the dogs use his grave as a toilet.

    He had the weapon he was part of the gang causing the trouble he tried to use the weapon on the man visiting his elderly mother.

    Simple answer to you silly post if scum don't want their brains bashed in don't go around terrorising whole communities it is not rocket science FFs.

    Scum and their families and those who defend them have some neck crying about the rules and drawing the line.:rolleyes:


  • #410
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Yes. There is nothing in the reported facts to state that the person 'nominated' for the car damage was the 1 person out of 20 that was there. I raised the point that the word 'nominated' was strange in the news report.

    Do you have knowledge of facts that don't appear to be reported?

    Are you familiar with the concept of conspiracy, or shared intention? You don't have to have committed an overt act to be considered a co-conspirator to an act of crime. If you were surrounded by a gang of criminals and one of them punched you and stole your wallet, are you telling me you wouldn't regard all 20 of them as scumbags in equal measure, even if reserving more personal hatred for the person who actually did the punching and stealing?

    What you're failing to take into account in your arguments is the cultural backdrop to all of this. Ireland has a problem with impunity at all levels of society and one of those very visible and widely maligned areas is the area of violence, harassment and vandalism committed by groups of young scumbags. It's in that context that this guy is getting support, because most of us here would have good reason, based on regular news reporting, to bet every cent we have on the thugs involved receiving the most minor slap on the wrist if their crimes ever actually made it to court.

    Vigilantism is only cheered in a scenario in which the state is perceived as having abdicated its responsibility to administer justice formally. Why would anyone cheer it otherwise?


  • #411
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    CinemaGuy45 wrote: »
    Scum and their families and those who defend them have some neck crying about the rules and drawing the line.:rolleyes:

    You’re defending the criminal here


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    8-10 wrote: »
    You’re defending the criminal here

    Question: What do you think should be done with thugs who harass people in groups and commit acts of petty and violent crime for no reason other than their twisted minds finding it mildly amusing? Are you personally happy with the status quo, which is "nothing"? If not, what should change?


  • #413
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    Guy deserved no more than a suspended sentence.

    Scrot instigated the confrontation and got his just deserts.

    The only thing upsetting me is the poor guy going to prison.


  • #414
    CinemaGuy45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭CinemaGuy45


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    Guy deserved no more than a suspended sentence.

    Scrot instigated the confrontation and got his just deserts.

    The only thing upsetting me is the poor guy going to prison.

    1f44d.png


  • #415
    NewbridgeIR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,961 ✭✭✭NewbridgeIR


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »

    Vigilantism is only cheered in a scenario in which the state is perceived as having abdicated its responsibility to administer justice formally. Why would anyone cheer it otherwise?


    Given that nobody has been charged with
    1. Attempting to attack the defendant with the plank
    2. Damaging the car

    Then his actions can been seen as justified. On the basis that the state had no interest in administering justice.

    Punishing the person who retaliates while letting the instigator off has been going on for years - in sport, in school etc. It's very unfair.


  • #416
    CinemaGuy45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭CinemaGuy45


    NewbridgeIR wrote: »
    Given that nobody has been charged with
    1. Attempting to attack the defendant with the plank
    2. Damaging the car

    Then his actions can been seen as justified. On the basis that the state had no interest in administering justice.

    Punishing the person who retaliates while letting the instigator off has been going on for years - in sport, in school etc. It's very unfair.

    The little scum can not spleeek wriet nowww ahh.


  • #417
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    NewbridgeIR wrote: »
    Given that nobody has been charged with
    1. Attempting to attack the defendant with the plank
    2. Damaging the car

    Then his actions can been seen as justified. On the basis that the state had no interest in administering justice.

    Punishing the person who retaliates while letting the instigator off has been going on for years - in sport, in school etc. It's very unfair.

    100% this. If any son or daughter of mine ever gets in trouble in school for standing up to a bully and giving them a taste of their own medicine, they’ll be getting a night out at the cinema or something from me to compensate. It’s absolutely ridiculous how retaliation is seen as equal to or even worse than the unprovoked initial crime in terms of how “wrong” it is.


  • #418
    CinemaGuy45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭CinemaGuy45


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    100% this. If any son or daughter of mine ever gets in trouble in school for standing up to a bully and giving them a taste of their own medicine, they’ll be getting a night out at the cinema or something from me to compensate. It’s absolutely ridiculous how retaliation is seen as equal to or even worse than the unprovoked initial crime in terms of how “wrong” it is.

    I would pay to see the little scrote get his skull cracked and laugh in the faces of his upset parents.

    If he had died I would have laughed.

    I have seen what it is like to live with scum like that destroying an area.

    Four years for that poor man makes me very angry.

    Useless corrupt legal system and corrupt Garda.


  • #419
    MayoSalmon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭MayoSalmon


    I have not one drop of sympathy for the little scrote


  • #420
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    Guy deserved no more than a suspended sentence.

    Scrot instigated the confrontation and got his just deserts.

    The only thing upsetting me is the poor guy going to prison.

    Judge explicitly said that if it wasn't for his previous Convictions he would have a full suspended sentence. You have admiration for someone that has a character you abhor.

    Only difference is that you have now evidence that the 16 year old did anything wrong but the guy you feel sorry for is guilty of two separate acts of grevious harm


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    Possible. A lot of people who are horrified by the outcome would suggest he would have been better off running, rather than shaping.

    The possibility you suggest here is one of a number, though this is the one suits your general need to 'convict'. I don't think that is coincidental.



    If. Maybe.

    Guilty by association, definitely.



    I am offerering possibilities, not building a case out of one to the exclusion of many others.



    Ergo, we should not dismiss out of hand that he got what he deserved, even by your own standards. Have you allowed that ?

    I, on the other hand, am using different criteria and hunches.

    We may as well be speaking different languages, in a way.

    Now this post makes a lot of sense. It takes the reported facts and the argument is justified. It also doesn't attack any poster.

    I believe a man's home is his castle. I believe he has the rightto protect it.

    What my point all along was that people were too quick to applaud a child receiving a brain injury and opine that he was dirt.


  • #422
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Are you familiar with the concept of conspiracy, or shared intention? You don't have to have committed an overt act to be considered a co-conspirator to an act of crime. If you were surrounded by a gang of criminals and one of them punched you and stole your wallet, are you telling me you wouldn't regard all 20 of them as scumbags in equal measure, even if reserving more personal hatred for the person who actually did the punching and stealing?

    What you're failing to take into account in your arguments is the cultural backdrop to all of this. Ireland has a problem with impunity at all levels of society and one of those very visible and widely maligned areas is the area of violence, harassment and vandalism committed by groups of young scumbags. It's in that context that this guy is getting support, because most of us here would have good reason, based on regular news reporting, to bet every cent we have on the thugs involved receiving the most minor slap on the wrist if their crimes ever actually made it to court.

    Vigilantism is only cheered in a scenario in which the state is perceived as having abdicated its responsibility to administer justice formally. Why would anyone cheer it otherwise?

    Nothing in your post is incorrect. However you have constructed a situation that doesn't fit squarely in the reported case. Firstly it is not the case of 20 people surrounding someone and punching them and or stealing a wallet. It is actually someone storming out with a weapon and confronting someone for maybe doing something

    The crime of conspiracy is when there is a group who intend to commit an act. We don't have that here other than an anti social event occurring which could simply be loud music.

    My whole point of debating on this thread is that a 16 year old is painted as a thug or a scumbag with no evidence backing up that. Also the assailant has previous convictions for serious assault with a knife which people disregard.

    I dislike false accusations and I hate bullies. I will stand up for any person who protects themselves and family when required. But I don't agree that someone can get a life changing injury from an assault where they did (based on what we know) very little


  • #423
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,575 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    CinemaGuy45 wrote: »
    I would pay to see the little scrote get his skull cracked and laugh in the faces of his upset parents.

    If he had died I would have laughed.

    You would pay to see a 16 year old boy murdered?

    That's perfectly normal.


  • #424
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    Boggles wrote: »
    You would pay to see a 16 year old boy murdered?

    That's perfectly normal.

    No, he said he would pay to see the skull cracking, and laugh at a fatality.

    He didn't say he would pay for the fatality.

    Do you see what you did there ? You're so used to tactical distortion of people's posts, you do it automatically, even for the simplest of statements.

    The boards of the world are crawling with such disingenuity. Loathsome, achieving nothing.


  • #425
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,575 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    He didn't say he would pay for the fatality.


    Really, must have left out the part where he would ask for a refund if it turned into murder.

    Probably too busy laughing at the parents of the murdered child I suppose.

    Like I said perfectly normal behavior.

    Keep trucking, super work.

    #edgelords


  • #426
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Judge explicitly said that if it wasn't for his previous Convictions he would have a full suspended sentence. You have admiration for someone that has a character you abhor.

    Only difference is that you have now evidence that the 16 year old did anything wrong but the guy you feel sorry for is guilty of two separate acts of grevious harm

    Of course the 16 year old did something wrong. He was involved in criminal damage,watching and besetting, harassment and assault. He got away lighly with tap on the skull.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Of course the 16 year old did something wrong. He was involved in criminal damage,watching and besetting, harassment and assault. He got away lighly with tap on the skull.

    So why wasn't yer man congratulated?

    A: because you can't go around smashing skulls in. It's not a measured response.


  • #428
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    8-10 wrote: »
    So why wasn't yer man congratulated?

    A: because you can't go around smashing skulls in. It's not a measured response.

    Yer man was congratulated, by right thinking people. people o this thread have congratulated him. The 16 year old did penty wrong. Just because someone was convicted of chastising him doesn't mean he did nothing wrong in the first place.
    If he hadn't done what he did, his head would be in a better place now.


  • #429
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    Boggles wrote: »
    Really, must have left out the part where he would ask for a refund if it turned into murder.

    As well as distortion of what other people actually say, you also go in for total fabrication.

    Making a fool of yourself, child.


  • #430
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Yer man was congratulated, by right thinking people. people o this thread have congratulated him. The 16 year old did penty wrong. Just because someone was convicted of chastising him doesn't mean he did nothing wrong in the first place.
    If he hadn't done what he did, his head would be in a better place now.

    Don’t think anybody’s here saying the kid didn’t do anything wrong

    I’m sure yer man’s over the moon with the congratulations he’s gotten from this thread. Fair play to him, he can probably tot up the thanks that posts praising him got and feel delighted with himself


  • #431
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,575 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    As well as distortion of what other people actually say, you also go in for total fabrication.

    Making a fool of yourself, child.

    Yeah, like I said perfectly normal behavior.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    8-10 wrote: »
    Because you haven't explained how a bat instead of a hurley would have swayed the jury?

    What has that got to do with common design?


  • #433
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    8-10 wrote: »
    Don’t think anybody’s here saying the kid didn’t do anything wrong
    joeguevara did at post #420. Obviously you are not reading the thread, just interjecting.


  • #434
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    joeguevara did at post #420. Obviously you are not reading the thread, just interjecting.

    Not exactly, he was commenting on the evidence. Common sense though suggests he was in the wrong so I disagree with that poster if he meant by this that he definitely didn't do anything wrong. That's not my opinion.
    joeguevara wrote: »
    Only difference is that you have now evidence that the 16 year old did anything wrong


  • #435
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    What has that got to do with common design?

    You are the one who said:
    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    if it was a cricket bat he would have been let off.

    And I'm yet to hear a genuine reason why you believe that? Why would a bat have resulted in being let off, but a hurley results in conviction?

    What is the difference in your view that leads you to this conclusion?


  • #436
    meathstevie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    major bill wrote: »
    Sounds like they have never set foot in crumlin! Gang of young lads acting the bollox , go out and talking woulda given him a hiding!

    Or worse...


  • #437
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    8-10 wrote: »
    Not exactly, he was commenting on the evidence. Common sense though suggests he was in the wrong so I disagree with that poster if he meant by this that he definitely didn't do anything wrong. That's not my opinion.

    My comment in #420 was that there was no evidence reported that he damaged the car which started the train of events. And without that evidence, I feel that people are too quick to label him a scumbag and deserving of his fate.


  • #438
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    My comment in #420 was that there was no evidence reported that he damaged the car which started the train of events. And without that evidence, I feel that people are too quick to label him a scumbag and deserving of his fate.

    No evidence for that either.


  • #439
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    No evidence for that either.

    It was reported that the reason that Mr. Curtis exited his house brandishing a hurley was that he witnessed his car being damaged. He then nominated the 16 year old as said person who committed damage. What do you mean that there is no evidence for that either?


  • #440
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    It was reported that the reason that Mr. Curtis exited his house brandishing a hurley was that he witnessed his car being damaged. He then nominated the 16 year old as said person who committed damage. What do you mean that there is no evidence for that either?

    What I mean is that there is no evidence that the damage to the car started the chain if events.

    It might have been the catalyst for what happened on the day, but that is a separate concept.

    For all we know, damage to the car is just as likely to have been 'the last straw', as to have been 'the first link in the chain'.

    But I rely more on common sense and knowledge of how these lowlifes operate to make residents' lives difficult over a period of time, rather than depending on media reportage of a single incident.


    ps In your years of training to become a criminal barrister, did you ever come across the logical fallacy of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' ?


  • #441
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    What I mean is that there is no evidence that the damage to the car started the chain if events.

    It might have been the catalyst for what happened on the day, but that is a separate concept.

    For all we know, damage to the car is just as likely to have been 'the last straw', as to have been 'the first link in the chain'.

    But I rely more on common sense and knowledge of how these lowlifes operate to make residents' lives difficult over a period of time, rather than depending on media reportage of a single incident.


    ps In your years of training to become a criminal barrister, did you ever come across the logical fallacy of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' ?

    It started the chain of events that lead to the 16 year old getting a brain injury. Your basic premise is that the 16 year old is, as you put it, a lowlife, and that you have knowledge of how they operate. I prefer to go on reported facts.

    As it has never been reported that there were previous incidents and as we have no evidence that the 16 year old was ever there previously, it simply follows that the criminal damage started the train of events. You espouse that it might have been a catalyst i.e. an event that caused an event. That is what I stated.

    And as for your ps, I was never one for learning Latin, even legal latin and abhor anyone who tries to sound clever by quoting it. Most criminal cases are done in plain English. But in my opinion if a judge states that it occurred as it did, I would go by that as opposed to what a random poster, who continually questions my job, relies on.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    joeguevara wrote: »
    It started the chain of events that lead to the 16 year old getting a brain injury.

    Unproven. Still.
    Your basic premise is that the 16 year old is, as you put it, a lowlife, and that you have knowledge of how they operate. I prefer to go on reported facts.

    In which case you're just a consumer of mass media. They don't lie or distort though. Oh, no.
    As it has never been reported that there were previous incidents and as we have no evidence that the 16 year old was ever there previously, it simply follows that the criminal damage started the train of events.

    You are actually saying that because something was not reported, it has had no causative effect.

    In other words, that because nothing prior to the car damage has been reported, the car damage must be the first act in the chain of events.

    That is just puerile gibberish.
    And as for your ps, I was never one for learning Latin, even legal latin and abhor anyone who tries to sound clever by quoting it. Most criminal cases are done in plain English.

    Most landscape design is done in English as well, but just like the law, the learning of it requires some Latin. You'd know that if had ever been a barrister, and you would have immediately recognised the logical fallacy I mentioned.
    But in my opinion if a judge states that it occurred as it did, I would go by that as opposed to what a random poster, who continually questions my job, relies on.

    Questioning your job ? Use of the present tense, implying it is your current occupation. Yet, you've already referred to it as being in the past...

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111502060&postcount=269

    From barrister to PSNI recruit. Bit of a comedown, no ?

    Starting to feel sorry for you now. Bye.


  • #443
    JustAThought
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,324 ✭✭✭JustAThought


    I’d love to see ine of the many so called human rights and public interest lobbyist organisations asking for a judicial review if that can be done on the sentencing on this. If a rapist can be given a suspended sentence by Judge Herbert and thousands of suspended sentences handed out hand over fist for recidivist criminals then surely something can be done here. This country has gone completely out of hand in favour of scumbag scrotes and ferral antisocial gangs who terrorise families and neighbourhoods. You can be sure if it was the original judges car there would have been an entirely different handling of the entire case.


Advertisement