Will any witnesses come forward? I doubt it.....
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_irelan...
Not that I condone gun crime, but even if I have no sympathy for the rapist and I doubt anyone will ever come forward as a witness against the shooters.
Not that I condone gun crime, but even if I have no sympathy for the rapist and I doubt anyone will ever come forward as a witness against the shooters.
BBC article said:
A man shot in both legs in a paramilitary-style attack in Londonderry was awaiting sentencing for raping a 15-year-old schoolgirl.
Keith Burnside, 37, from Rosemount Gardens was shot when two masked men forced their way into his home at about 2315 BST on Monday.
Burnside was convicted in March of raping a girl in his car at Sandbank Cottages in 2000.
He was due to be sentenced for the attack shortly.
During the trial the court heard that his victim blocked the attack out of her mind for seven years before reporting it, after the accused smirked at her outside a nightclub.
A defence application was due to be heard in Londonderry Crown Court on Tuesday but was adjourned when the court was told of the attack.
Burnside is being treated in hospital for his injuries which are not life threatening.
Community worker Tommy McCourt said such incidents made people fearful of a return to violence. "It takes you back to the bad old days," he said.
"We believed that those days had passed and nobody wants to see this kind of thing happening again."
SDLP MLA Pat Ramsey also condemned the attack. "The people who carried out this shooting have no support from the local community and no place in a civilised society," he said.
The police said that those responsible were of slim build and wore tracksuits, baseball caps, and scarves over their faces.
The first man was 5ft 10ins and the second 6ft 2ins.
They want anyone who was in the area at the time and may have seen the men to contact them.
Keith Burnside, 37, from Rosemount Gardens was shot when two masked men forced their way into his home at about 2315 BST on Monday.
Burnside was convicted in March of raping a girl in his car at Sandbank Cottages in 2000.
He was due to be sentenced for the attack shortly.
During the trial the court heard that his victim blocked the attack out of her mind for seven years before reporting it, after the accused smirked at her outside a nightclub.
A defence application was due to be heard in Londonderry Crown Court on Tuesday but was adjourned when the court was told of the attack.
Burnside is being treated in hospital for his injuries which are not life threatening.
Community worker Tommy McCourt said such incidents made people fearful of a return to violence. "It takes you back to the bad old days," he said.
"We believed that those days had passed and nobody wants to see this kind of thing happening again."
SDLP MLA Pat Ramsey also condemned the attack. "The people who carried out this shooting have no support from the local community and no place in a civilised society," he said.
The police said that those responsible were of slim build and wore tracksuits, baseball caps, and scarves over their faces.
The first man was 5ft 10ins and the second 6ft 2ins.
They want anyone who was in the area at the time and may have seen the men to contact them.
beanbag said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_irelan...
Not that I condone gun crime, but even if I have no sympathy for the rapist and I doubt anyone will ever come forward as a witness against the shooters.
And the rapist does then? I don't condone gun crime either, but I think he's missing the point here, it wasn't exactly an unprovoked attack on him.Not that I condone gun crime, but even if I have no sympathy for the rapist and I doubt anyone will ever come forward as a witness against the shooters.
BBC article said:
A man shot in both legs in a paramilitary-style attack in Londonderry was awaiting sentencing for raping a 15-year-old schoolgirl.
Keith Burnside, 37, from Rosemount Gardens was shot when two masked men forced their way into his home at about 2315 BST on Monday.
Burnside was convicted in March of raping a girl in his car at Sandbank Cottages in 2000.
He was due to be sentenced for the attack shortly.
During the trial the court heard that his victim blocked the attack out of her mind for seven years before reporting it, after the accused smirked at her outside a nightclub.
A defence application was due to be heard in Londonderry Crown Court on Tuesday but was adjourned when the court was told of the attack.
Burnside is being treated in hospital for his injuries which are not life threatening.
Community worker Tommy McCourt said such incidents made people fearful of a return to violence. "It takes you back to the bad old days," he said.
"We believed that those days had passed and nobody wants to see this kind of thing happening again."
SDLP MLA Pat Ramsey also condemned the attack. "The people who carried out this shooting have no support from the local community and no place in a civilised society," he said.
The police said that those responsible were of slim build and wore tracksuits, baseball caps, and scarves over their faces.
The first man was 5ft 10ins and the second 6ft 2ins.
They want anyone who was in the area at the time and may have seen the men to contact them.
Keith Burnside, 37, from Rosemount Gardens was shot when two masked men forced their way into his home at about 2315 BST on Monday.
Burnside was convicted in March of raping a girl in his car at Sandbank Cottages in 2000.
He was due to be sentenced for the attack shortly.
During the trial the court heard that his victim blocked the attack out of her mind for seven years before reporting it, after the accused smirked at her outside a nightclub.
A defence application was due to be heard in Londonderry Crown Court on Tuesday but was adjourned when the court was told of the attack.
Burnside is being treated in hospital for his injuries which are not life threatening.
Community worker Tommy McCourt said such incidents made people fearful of a return to violence. "It takes you back to the bad old days," he said.
"We believed that those days had passed and nobody wants to see this kind of thing happening again."
SDLP MLA Pat Ramsey also condemned the attack. "The people who carried out this shooting have no support from the local community and no place in a civilised society," he said.
The police said that those responsible were of slim build and wore tracksuits, baseball caps, and scarves over their faces.
The first man was 5ft 10ins and the second 6ft 2ins.
They want anyone who was in the area at the time and may have seen the men to contact them.
Id be quite happy for people to criticise these shootings, saying there's no place for it in civilised culture.........if the community could rely on the police.
But they cant.
Sentences don't fit the crimes atm, and berieved families feel let down by a system that is more leniant on criminals than ever before!!!!
Remeber when Labour first came to power....remember the rhetoric;
"Tough on crime, tough on causes of crime"
Yeah right!
But they cant.
Sentences don't fit the crimes atm, and berieved families feel let down by a system that is more leniant on criminals than ever before!!!!
Remeber when Labour first came to power....remember the rhetoric;
"Tough on crime, tough on causes of crime"
Yeah right!
One wonders if she WAS actually raped. Having been convicted by a jury of his peers you would have to say he probably did rape her but any number of other scenarios could have ended up with him in the dock.
The article says he smirked at her outside a nightclub - one could question who was outside the nightclub - him or her? (or both?). If we say they both were, could the 15yr old girl have had some drink in her, having been visiting other establishments before going to the nightclub? Could the sex have been entirely consential, only for the £ signs to light up a few years later (possible after pressure from her family/friends?) Perhaps a child was borne as a result of the encounter, and the guy balked at making maintenance payments resulting in her accusation?
As I say, any number of situations might have resulted in his conviction and since I am not in possesion of all the evidence & testimony I would have to put my faith in the justice system and say he was probably guilty. If he IS guilty then I can't say the shooting bothers me much.
If, on the other hand, he made a mistake of having sex with an underage and possibly drunk girl 9 years ago and it's came back to haunt him then he is surely due a fair degree of sympathy.
The article says he smirked at her outside a nightclub - one could question who was outside the nightclub - him or her? (or both?). If we say they both were, could the 15yr old girl have had some drink in her, having been visiting other establishments before going to the nightclub? Could the sex have been entirely consential, only for the £ signs to light up a few years later (possible after pressure from her family/friends?) Perhaps a child was borne as a result of the encounter, and the guy balked at making maintenance payments resulting in her accusation?
As I say, any number of situations might have resulted in his conviction and since I am not in possesion of all the evidence & testimony I would have to put my faith in the justice system and say he was probably guilty. If he IS guilty then I can't say the shooting bothers me much.
If, on the other hand, he made a mistake of having sex with an underage and possibly drunk girl 9 years ago and it's came back to haunt him then he is surely due a fair degree of sympathy.
oobster said:
One wonders if she WAS actually raped. Having been convicted by a jury of his peers you would have to say he probably did rape her but any number of other scenarios could have ended up with him in the dock.
I thought that too when I saw this article. The way the ages are quoted makes it look worse. She was 15 then and he is 37 *now*.Office_Monkey said:
Watched "Outlaw" (£3 from HMV, bargain!) the other day. I wonder how many people would actually carry out a vigilante attack on a criminal, rather than say they would.
if it were your own family and if justice is not done for a serious crime - then I would look into expressing my displeasure.oobster said:
The article says he smirked at her outside a nightclub - one could question who was outside the nightclub - him or her? (or both?). If we say they both were, could the 15yr old girl have had some drink in her, having been visiting other establishments before going to the nightclub? Could the sex have been entirely consential, only for the £ signs to light up a few years later (possible after pressure from her family/friends?) Perhaps a child was borne as a result of the encounter, and the guy balked at making maintenance payments resulting in her accusation?
I think you are running away with yourself there...As I understand it the girl decided to report the rape seven years after it had allegedly happened because he smirked at her outside a nightclub.
As in: They recoginsed each other whilst outside a nightclub, he smirked at her knowing what he had done to her 7 years ago and she decided to teach him a lesson.
Kind of.
They were obviously blind gunmen....they missed his head by a good couple of foot.
Not enough justice served there i feel, why isn't he dead? why should people like that be let out into the community? "I promise i'll not do it again"..."are you sure?"....."oh dead sure"...."ok you can go now"
Why not just "you are found guilty of rape, so i sentence you to...."
Not enough justice served there i feel, why isn't he dead? why should people like that be let out into the community? "I promise i'll not do it again"..."are you sure?"....."oh dead sure"...."ok you can go now"
Why not just "you are found guilty of rape, so i sentence you to...."
Edited by WorAl on Tuesday 31st March 15:27
So he was convicted of raping what was arguably a child at the time, yet he is allowed at home, with two children, whilst he is awaiting sentencing. Why the f
k wasnt he in jail on remand?
Is this what we do now to free up prison cells, convict someone then let them go home until we can be bothered to pass a sentance, giving them ample opportunity to run away or commit again?
k wasnt he in jail on remand?Is this what we do now to free up prison cells, convict someone then let them go home until we can be bothered to pass a sentance, giving them ample opportunity to run away or commit again?
Nolar Dog said:
oobster said:
The article says he smirked at her outside a nightclub - one could question who was outside the nightclub - him or her? (or both?). If we say they both were, could the 15yr old girl have had some drink in her, having been visiting other establishments before going to the nightclub? Could the sex have been entirely consential, only for the £ signs to light up a few years later (possible after pressure from her family/friends?) Perhaps a child was borne as a result of the encounter, and the guy balked at making maintenance payments resulting in her accusation?
I think you are running away with yourself there...As I understand it the girl decided to report the rape seven years after it had allegedly happened because he smirked at her outside a nightclub.
As in: They recoginsed each other whilst outside a nightclub, he smirked at her knowing what he had done to her 7 years ago and she decided to teach him a lesson.
Kind of.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff