“must be” why exactly?

Still not making any kind of sense.

BBC:

Cathal Crotty, 22, attacked 24-year-old Natasha O’Brien, punching her six times, after she asked him to stop shouting homophobic abuse. Ms O’Brien’s injuries included a broken nose and bruising. She told the court she has suffered nightmares and panic attacks.

Crotty was given a three-year suspended sentence on Thursday. The judge described the attack as a “cowardly, vicious, unprovoked” assault. However, he said the defendant “must be given credit” for his guilty plea and told the court he had “no doubt” that if Crotty was jailed his army “career is over”.

Where is the “must” in “must be given credit” for pleading guilty? If it’s a legal “must” that’s one thing, but if it’s supposed to be a moral one – get out of here.

And as for fretting about the end of his army career – are you out of your MIND?

Does it not occur to this nightmare of a judge that armies don’t need or want soldiers who like to beat up random women for a hobby? That war crimes are not the goal? That recreational aggression is not the highway to solidiery excellence?

There’s that, but even more there’s the stomach-turning sympathy for the horrible man who wrecked a woman’s body and life, at the expense of the woman he smashed up.

The Irish Defence Forces, which has begun internal proceedings in relation to Crotty now that the court case is over, said it “unequivocally condemns any actions by serving personnel that are contrary to or do not reflect our values”. It added that “any conviction in a civilian court may have implications for the retention and service of members” of the defence forces.

Yesterday I thought they’d said they were starting the process of booting him out, but apparently not. They’re starting the process of considering what to do about him.

4 Responses to ““must be” why exactly?”

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting