Christmas eve at a pub, random bloke comes in and starts shooting at people. Pub goers react to stop the assault, gunman is killed of injuries sustained in the beating from the crowd.
Man, if someones shooting into a crowd of people, using deadly force to stop them does not sound like whatever vigilante justice narrative these prosecutors are trying for. Sounds more like what the world needs, a healthy dose of FAFO.
They have to be charged, a man was violently killed, that's the Prosecutor's job. Now whether they are found guilty, or jailed is another thing entirely.
Also, we don't know the circumstances. Is this gang related? If so then the charges are probably warranted. The article says "after the shooting" the gunman was killed. In which case subduing the attacker and letting the authorities deal with the situation, is what a reasonable society expects. But if he's actively shooting and that's the way you need to end it, then by all means.
That's not "the prosecutor's job". One of the prosecutor's duties is determining when the police fuck up and arrest someone who has not broken the law; at that point, the prosecutor should drop the case.
That's not how it works in many places, and even here in the US. You absolutely can be detained and charged yet later exonerated. Some places when you kill someone you are by default charged with murder because you killed someone, your personal feelings don't determine the laws elsewhere. The public doesn't determine whether or not someone gets arrested, and yeah, if someone gets killed I expect the cops to hold the killer for a while to figure out what happened.
Or pursue it to make it clearly defined. That's how the law works, we quite literally have precedent because a prosecutor or defense attorney wouldn't let the shit go.
He doesn't have to be charged. It needs to be investigated first. Idk if that's what has happened here.
It happened 2weeks ago, that's plenty of time for an investigation of some description to have occured. And reading elsewhere, it sounds like the gunman was subdued, then killed. And that certainly changes things.
But if he was shooting pub goers then they could use appropriate force to stop him. It's common sense.
You know what else is common sense? Not commenting on a topic when you don't have all the facts. How do you know the force was appropriate? Cos all I'm reading says that gunman appears to have been killed after he'd been subdued. Hence the charges.
Then nobody ever can comment on anything, because such a thing as having all the facts doesn’t exist.
That seems like a silly hight bar. How about we throw in reading comprehension to the list?
Lets compare:
How do you know the force was appropriate
I'll highlight important words for you:
But if he was shooting pub goers then they could use appropriate force to stop him.
Hope that helps you out.
Okay, here's some reading comprehension for you. The person you intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was subdued. They also said that appropriate force would be reasonable if he was actively shooting. You've basically repeated what they've said, trying to antagonise a response. It's a shitty way to try and have a discussion, and I'm gonna call people out on this every day of the week. Be better.
intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was
Oh? WokerOne made that clear? Incorrect. So.... Kinda invalidates your rude remark... And is the basis for my argument. Hence the repetition. Nor did the parent comment make that clear either. Certainly suggests it might be the case. But, when sommone follows that up with its own premise and context, and you ignore it, is on you. The usefulness of a conversation after that point is also lost. But again, that's on you.
The article says "after the shooting" the gunman was killed.
Pretty fucking clear to me. Note it doesn't say "during" or any of its synonyms.
Yes.... Meh. This is boring. You don't really understand what it is you failed to understand. But that's alright.
You don't understand basic English comprehension.
Let's break down your initial comment.
But if he was shooting pub goers
He wasn't so the rest of your comment is irrelevant. He had shot pub goers, but he wasn't when he was killed. He had been subdued. Don't need to break down the rest cos it's as useful as you are in general to society, not very.
Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. This is why every time someone dies we don't have a trial
True. In this case it's a finding of fact so the person being charged can be found not guilty in a court of law rather than public opinion.
A reasonable societies only recourse to a nutjob, gang member or not is to hold the person down and wait for the police to show up?
And your reference to "after the shooting" implies that the shooter just blasted a few people stopped and put his gun away and started playing cards or some shit.
Not that the patrons that stopped the idiot could be the reason that "after the shooting" happened at all!? I will never understand the mindset of this bubble you live in.
Reading other articles, it sure sounds like the gunman was subdued and no longer a threat, then was killed. Not killed during the subduing as you are implying, but after it.
From the articles description, this doesn’t seem like it’s the best case for the government to take a stand on vigilantism.
Very strange sounding from that article, are there any long form breakdown of the how and why they're charged with murder?
That's likely to come out as the court case progresses - the government will have to argue their case.
If the gunman was already on the ground when he was stabbed, that's not good for the accused young man's case as it's gonna be hard to argue imminent danger from someone pinned to the floor.
Personally I'm withholding judgement, for now.
Yeah, from reading other places' articles, it is this. The crowd had the guy on the ground and, for all practical concerns, neutralized. It appears the issue is determining if the beating and stabbing happened after this point, thus they took it farther than needed for reasonable force.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A teenager has been charged with the knife murder of a 26-year-old man who was killed after opening fire in a Dublin restaurant on Christmas Eve.
David Amah, 18, appeared at a Dublin district court on Friday, along with 26-year-old Wayne Deegan, who has been charged with assault causing harm during the same incident.
Gardaí believe Sherry entered Browne’s Steakhouse restaurant in the Dublin suburb of Blanchardstown and opened fire on a group of people on Christmas Eve, according to the Irish Times.
A 48-year-old man, Jason Hennessy Sr, was hit in the neck and died of his injuries on Thursday.
After the shooting, Sherry was tackled by a group of restaurant customers and allegedly assaulted.
Judge Máire Conneely remanded Amah and Deegan in custody until 9 January.
The original article contains 191 words, the summary contains 128 words. Saved 33%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Sounds like gang shit, if it is I don't care hope they all get time.
Christmas eve at a pub, random bloke comes in and starts shooting at people. Pub goers react to stop the assault, gunman is killed of injuries sustained in the beating from the crowd.
Man, if someones shooting into a crowd of people, using deadly force to stop them does not sound like whatever vigilante justice narrative these prosecutors are trying for. Sounds more like what the world needs, a healthy dose of FAFO.
They have to be charged, a man was violently killed, that's the Prosecutor's job. Now whether they are found guilty, or jailed is another thing entirely.
Also, we don't know the circumstances. Is this gang related? If so then the charges are probably warranted. The article says "after the shooting" the gunman was killed. In which case subduing the attacker and letting the authorities deal with the situation, is what a reasonable society expects. But if he's actively shooting and that's the way you need to end it, then by all means.
That's not "the prosecutor's job". One of the prosecutor's duties is determining when the police fuck up and arrest someone who has not broken the law; at that point, the prosecutor should drop the case.
That's not how it works in many places, and even here in the US. You absolutely can be detained and charged yet later exonerated. Some places when you kill someone you are by default charged with murder because you killed someone, your personal feelings don't determine the laws elsewhere. The public doesn't determine whether or not someone gets arrested, and yeah, if someone gets killed I expect the cops to hold the killer for a while to figure out what happened.
Or pursue it to make it clearly defined. That's how the law works, we quite literally have precedent because a prosecutor or defense attorney wouldn't let the shit go.
He doesn't have to be charged. It needs to be investigated first. Idk if that's what has happened here.
It happened 2weeks ago, that's plenty of time for an investigation of some description to have occured. And reading elsewhere, it sounds like the gunman was subdued, then killed. And that certainly changes things.
But if he was shooting pub goers then they could use appropriate force to stop him. It's common sense.
You know what else is common sense? Not commenting on a topic when you don't have all the facts. How do you know the force was appropriate? Cos all I'm reading says that gunman appears to have been killed after he'd been subdued. Hence the charges.
Then nobody ever can comment on anything, because such a thing as having all the facts doesn’t exist.
That seems like a silly hight bar. How about we throw in reading comprehension to the list?
Lets compare:
I'll highlight important words for you:
Hope that helps you out.
Okay, here's some reading comprehension for you. The person you intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was subdued. They also said that appropriate force would be reasonable if he was actively shooting. You've basically repeated what they've said, trying to antagonise a response. It's a shitty way to try and have a discussion, and I'm gonna call people out on this every day of the week. Be better.
Oh? WokerOne made that clear? Incorrect. So.... Kinda invalidates your rude remark... And is the basis for my argument. Hence the repetition. Nor did the parent comment make that clear either. Certainly suggests it might be the case. But, when sommone follows that up with its own premise and context, and you ignore it, is on you. The usefulness of a conversation after that point is also lost. But again, that's on you.
Pretty fucking clear to me. Note it doesn't say "during" or any of its synonyms.
Yes.... Meh. This is boring. You don't really understand what it is you failed to understand. But that's alright.
You don't understand basic English comprehension.
Let's break down your initial comment.
He wasn't so the rest of your comment is irrelevant. He had shot pub goers, but he wasn't when he was killed. He had been subdued. Don't need to break down the rest cos it's as useful as you are in general to society, not very.
Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. This is why every time someone dies we don't have a trial
True. In this case it's a finding of fact so the person being charged can be found not guilty in a court of law rather than public opinion.
A reasonable societies only recourse to a nutjob, gang member or not is to hold the person down and wait for the police to show up?
And your reference to "after the shooting" implies that the shooter just blasted a few people stopped and put his gun away and started playing cards or some shit. Not that the patrons that stopped the idiot could be the reason that "after the shooting" happened at all!? I will never understand the mindset of this bubble you live in.
Reading other articles, it sure sounds like the gunman was subdued and no longer a threat, then was killed. Not killed during the subduing as you are implying, but after it.
From the articles description, this doesn’t seem like it’s the best case for the government to take a stand on vigilantism.
Very strange sounding from that article, are there any long form breakdown of the how and why they're charged with murder?
That's likely to come out as the court case progresses - the government will have to argue their case.
If the gunman was already on the ground when he was stabbed, that's not good for the accused young man's case as it's gonna be hard to argue imminent danger from someone pinned to the floor.
Personally I'm withholding judgement, for now.
Yeah, from reading other places' articles, it is this. The crowd had the guy on the ground and, for all practical concerns, neutralized. It appears the issue is determining if the beating and stabbing happened after this point, thus they took it farther than needed for reasonable force.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A teenager has been charged with the knife murder of a 26-year-old man who was killed after opening fire in a Dublin restaurant on Christmas Eve.
David Amah, 18, appeared at a Dublin district court on Friday, along with 26-year-old Wayne Deegan, who has been charged with assault causing harm during the same incident.
Gardaí believe Sherry entered Browne’s Steakhouse restaurant in the Dublin suburb of Blanchardstown and opened fire on a group of people on Christmas Eve, according to the Irish Times.
A 48-year-old man, Jason Hennessy Sr, was hit in the neck and died of his injuries on Thursday.
After the shooting, Sherry was tackled by a group of restaurant customers and allegedly assaulted.
Judge Máire Conneely remanded Amah and Deegan in custody until 9 January.
The original article contains 191 words, the summary contains 128 words. Saved 33%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Sounds like gang shit, if it is I don't care hope they all get time.