The official NATIONAL court report thread

[SoundMan]

No, you butted into a conversation that you weren't part of, which was about aggravated offences.

If you multiquoted then maybe that wouldn't happen to you so often.

No - so you're agreed I didn't mention aggravated offence. I'll take that as the closest you'll get to apologising for insinuating I said something which I hadn't.

As for "butted into a conversation that (I wasn't) part of" - I think you really need to assess what the Langers Forum is all about and how it works

Why don't you answer the question put rather than going off at a tangent pretending I can't multiquote when you know I can.

Are you going to stick to your claims that the fact the dead man turned up in the middle of the night with a number of other men at least one of whom was armed with a golf club, was not relevant as to whether or not the child feared for his life?

 

[Matlock]

Why don't you find an example where you criticise a specific case where you think the judge erred, and see what his reaction would actually be rather than surmising what it might be. Just a suggestion like.

Because I have been dealing with Dan for the bones of 20 years and I know that he is incapable of admitting when he is wrong.

No - so you're agreed I didn't mention aggravated offence. I'll take that as the closest you'll get to apologising for insinuating I said something which I hadn't.

As for "butted into a conversation that (I wasn't) part of" - I think you really need to assess what the Langers Forum is all about and how it works

Why don't you answer the question put rather than going off at a tangent pretending I can't multiquote when you know I can.

Are you going to stick to your claims that the fact the dead man turned up in the middle of the night with a number of other men at least one of whom was armed with a golf club, was not relevant as to whether or not the child feared for his life

It is irrelevant to the other party being guilty of an aggravated offence, which was what was being discussed when you decided to "join" the conversation.

If you can multiquote (I have no idea if you can or not) then you should. Because you struggle desperately to follow any logical conversation. Maybe multi quote would help...

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Because I have been dealing with Dan for the bones of 20 years and I know that he is incapable of admitting when he is wrong.

You were asked by another poster to give a specific example of you being critical of sentencing.


You havn't done this despite claiming you have done so 'many times'.




Bluffer.

 

[SoundMan]

Because I have been dealing with Dan for the bones of 20 years and I know that he is incapable of admitting when he is wrong.

It is irrelevant to the other party being guilty of an aggravated offence, which was what was being discussed when you decided to "join" the conversation.

If you can multiquote (I have no idea if you can or not) then you should. Because you struggle desperately to follow any logical conversation. Maybe multi quote would help...

You're the one that seems to have difficulty following a logical conversation. I asked you if you wished to stick to your bizarre imho claim that the child and/or through his brief could not have credibly claimed to have been in fear of his life given the violence visited upon him by a more powerful man who turned up in the dead of night in his bedroom to batter him, and who'd been aided and abetted in breaking into the house by a number of other men at least one of whom was armed.

It really shouldn't be that difficult a question for you to answer.

I think that his accomplice being armed doesn't mean he is guilty of an aggravated offence. That is what we were speaking about before you went on this particular tangent.

See. Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean you're correct.

 

[Matlock]

You're the one that seems to have difficulty following a logical conversation. I asked you if you wished to stick to your bizarre imho claim that the child and/or through his brief could not have credibly claimed to have been in fear of his life given the violence visited upon him by a more powerful man who turned up in the dead of night in his bedroom to batter him, and who'd been aided and abetted in breaking into the house by a number of other men at least one of whom was armed.

It really shouldn't be that difficult a question for you to answer.


See. Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean you're correct.

I never made that claim.

 

[Matlock]

You were asked by another poster to give a specific example of you being critical of sentencing.


You havn't done this despite claiming you have done so 'many times'.




Bluffer.

And I gave it.

Me saying "Sentences in Ireland are too short" is a specific example of me being critical of sentencing.

Again, I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

 

[doppellanger]

Don't let the question mark and phraseology of the question deter you from your beliefs that it was a statement of fact rather than an actual question asked

What?

Are those my feet?

 

[SoundMan]

Even if you had reason to believe your own life, and that of an elderly relative, was at risk and that someone much more powerful than you was beating the crap out of you in an unprovoked attack????

I never made that claim.

You said to the above that if you'd used unreasonable force then yes (the sentence was correct)

I'm suggesting that in a case where someone reasonably fears for their own life and/or that of a loved one, then that might not have been deemed unreasonable force. We heard earlier that the dead man made a move towards the knife.

Are you going to deny that if he/his brief said he feared for his life given the circumstances that led to the death it would have been very plausible? That being the case how is it unreasonable force to protect his own life and/or that of a loved one?

 

[Hank Scorpio]

And I gave it.

Me saying "Sentences in Ireland are too short" is a specific example of me being critical of sentencing.

Again, I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

That is the very opposite of a specific example.



Bluffer.

 

[SoundMan]

What?

Are those my feet?

Not sure - is one already bloody, and are you staring down the barrel of a gun at the other?