"Citizen's arrest" of US soldiers in Shannon

Eh?
You think asking a legitimate question regarding how you arrive at your decision as to whether those troops are or are not lawfully in that hotel is off topic?
I suggest you revisit your definition of off topic...

Speaking of which get back on topic rather than discussing moderation in this thread.
Thats not tolerated "in thread"either.

Zambia

As someone who has performed several citizens arrests knowing full well the consequences of performing them illegally I can say this.

The bellend indeed had no right to arrest these soldiers as they had not commited a felony.

Citizens arrests are only meant to be used for felony's and treason as far as I recall and I see no instance of these soldiers felony or treason.

What the bellend did do was false imprison 6 soldiers that could have easily given him a good trashing had they decided to.

In fact the only person who should have been arrested was Conor Cregan for False imprisonment. Except some Garda saw this for what it was an entire waste of time.

. That's another topic for another thread. I also agree it was probably sheer embrassment that lead them to usher the troops away from the raving looney.

Foreign Sailors tour Dublin all the time in uniform and seem to recieve no attention except from hen nights.

If you have an issue with American involvement in Iraq go about protesting it politically outside the Dail etc. US soldiers are simply onroute to do a job one they deserve every bit of Irish hospitality in or outside of their uniforms. Personnally if some of our service personnel had a wander around Birmingham ,Alabama (example) while in transit I would hope the residents gave them a warmer welcome than we did.

edited spelling

RedPlanet

Zambia232 wrote:

In fact the only person who should have been arrested was Conor Cregan for False imprisonment.

He didn't imprison anybody whatsoever.
He shouted at them to stop, should they oblige or ignore him is entirely up to them.

Zambia232 wrote:

I also agree it was probably sheer embrassment that lead them to usher the troops away from the raving looney.

From the article it claims the gard ushered the troops back inside the hotel, therefore out of sight.
It didn't say the gard ushered them away from Conor Cregan (which could be moving the troops down the street). But you've failed to explain why the gard would hassle the troops whom were not committing any crimes insofar as you are concerned. Surely he should be moving mr. Cregan along?
Safest bet is that the gard conceded that Mr. Cregan was correct.
Otherwise people here would have serious issues with a Garda curtailing people's rights just to keep quiet a protestor.

After reading the origin article again it appears that on 2 occasions the troops in uniform were ushered back into the hotel by Gardai. Thus twice validating Mr. Cregans position.

Zambia

RedPlanet wrote:

He didn't imprison anybody whatsoever.
He shouted at them to stop, should they oblige or ignore him is entirely up to them.

Cregan immediately called for the six to stop. “I am placing you all under citizen’s arrest. Do not move” he shouted as the stunned men came to a halt.

This is a citizens arrest it does not have to be backed up by force. This statement is enough to arrest someone.

From the article it claims the gard ushered the troops back inside the hotel, therefore out of sight.
It didn't say the gard ushered them away from Conor Cregan (which could be moving the troops down the street). But you've failed to explain why the gard would hassle the troops whom were not committing any crimes insofar as you are concerned. Surely he should be moving mr. Cregan along?
Safest bet is that the gard conceded that Mr. Cregan was correct.

Quite the opposite this whole issue was a waste of time the prudent thing to do was to send the soldiers back into the hotel as thats where they where going to go anyway. Then Cregan who just loves to hear his own voice can listen to himself outside.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

After reading the origin article again it appears that on 2 occasions the troops in uniform were ushered back into the hotel by Gardai. Thus twice validating Mr. Cregans position.

How?
I've been ushered in to places many times by Gardaí in my lifetime-Is it now the case that each time I must have been doing something illegal ?

As I said earlier Mr Cregan had no sight of what dispensation these troops were given and ergo he was talking out of his hat.
In actual fact his actions were more the act of someone making up the law as they went along by the looks of things.

Of course if they had no dispensation to be there,then thats different.

How are we coming along with the FOI?

RedPlanet

Zambia232 wrote:

This is a citizens arrest it does not have to be backed up by force. This statement is enough to arrest someone.

Now you're moving goalposts Zambia232. "Arrest" is not the same thing as "imprison". One can be charged with "wrongful arrest", and one can also be charged with "falsely imprisoning".
Two different charges.
Since you claimed Mr. Cregan wrongfully imprisoned them, that's what i responded to.

RedPlanet

Tristrame wrote:

How?
I've been ushered in to places many times by Gardaí in my lifetime-Is it now the case that each time I must have been doing something illegal ?

Context Tristrame context.

In the context of Irish law that makes it is illegal for a foreign army to be in public donning their colours; the actions of garda to usher the troops into the hotel therefore out of public view, is consistant with the view that Ennis is not within "the immediate vicinity" as stipulated in the Minister's Government Press Release of 2003. Therefore in this context the Gards validated Mr. Cregan's position, infact i'd hazard a guess that he feels 100% correct in his interpretation and i do too.

Tristrame wrote:

How are we coming along with the FOI?

I thought that was in the context of proving that the US Embassy had or hadn't followed up this incident with Irish governemnt?
Like i said i can't prove that the US didn't appeal to the Irish Government over this. I said that that would be trying to prove a negative.
This very idea was proposed by posters on your side of the debate, therefore i feel it's up to ye to provide the proof (that the US Embassy did in fact followup the incident with a complaint or request to the Irish Government).

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

In the context of Irish law that makes it is illegal for a foreign army to be in public donning their colours; the actions of garda to usher the troops into the hotel therefore out of public view, is consistant with the view that Ennis is not within "the immediate vicinity" as stipulated in the Minister's Government Press Release of 2003.

It's consistent with any one of dozens of interpretations of the events of the day, any or all of which could be invented on a whim to suit an individual agenda. So why don't we stick to the facts of the matter? Such as the fact that under no circumstances could Cregan's actions possibly have had any validity under the law. He acted illegally in performing the "arrest", whether or not the soldiers should have been where they were.

RedPlanet wrote:

I thought that was in the context of proving that the US Embassy had or hadn't followed up this incident with Irish governemnt?

No, it was in the context of establishing the nature and extent of the derogation that was granted to the soldiers.

Victor

Tristrame wrote:

As I said earlier Mr Cregan had no sight of what dispensation these troops were given and ergo he was talking out of his hat.

And why didn't the Garda tell him there was a dispensation?

Did the dispensation actually exist when these incidents happened?

eoin5

How much information is open to the public about these dispensation matters? I'd imagine that since they've nothing to hide and that Ireland are such "good friends" with America that every American dispensation should be open to the public through some means. Its just you know because we can all go down and welcome uncle Sam with minature US flags and stuff.

This thread sucks btw

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote:

It's consistent with any one of dozens of interpretations of the events of the day, any or all of which could be invented on a whim to suit an individual agenda. So why don't we stick to the facts of the matter? Such as the fact that under no circumstances could Cregan's actions possibly ...

Sounds like a mouthful of mumbojumbo oscarBravo.
The facts are that on two seperate occasions Mr. Cregan complained to different Gardai about seeing (two different groups of) American soldiers in public with their uniforms on. In each case the Gardai ushered the soldiers into the hotel, out of public view.
The only sound conclusion is that the gardia accepted the merits of the complaint and immediately removed the soldiers from public view.

Fair play to them, notwithstanding their apparent begrudgery for having to do their jobs.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

The only sound conclusion is that the gardia accepted the merits of the complaint and immediately removed the soldiers from public view.

Fine, whatever passes for logic inside your own head.

Do you accept that Cregan acted unlawfully?

Zambia

RedPlanet wrote:

Now you're moving goalposts Zambia232. "Arrest" is not the same thing as "imprison". One can be charged with "wrongful arrest", and one can also be charged with "falsely imprisoning".
Two different charges.
Since you claimed Mr. Cregan wrongfully imprisoned them, that's what i responded to.

Afraid not I have arrested several people this way , once you tell someone you have arrested them for a felony offence after the fact you can be charged with false imprisonment.

Several security companies have been sued for wrongfull arrest when a not hand has been laid on anyone.

RedPlanet

Zambia232 wrote:

Afraid not I have arrested several people this way , once you tell someone you have arrested them for a felony offence after the fact you can be charged with false imprisonment.

Several security companies have been sued for wrongfull arrest when a not hand has been laid on anyone.

Being charged with something is different than being convicted of it.

Why not cite the relevant case, perhaps some unfortunate suffered from an incompetent solicitor or something, at least let us scrutinize the merits of your allegation.

Insofar as the security companies, i never claimed Mr. Cregan could not be charged with wrongful arrest, so that point is moot.

Zambia232

Zambia232 wrote:

This is a citizens arrest it does not have to be backed up by force. This statement is enough to arrest someone.

If someone said that to me I'd tell him where to stick it.

Rhonda9000

FYI wrote:

Visiting US troopsWhile Driving through Ennis town yesterday afternoon a local anti-war activist put six young US service men under (citizens) arrest. On Thursday morning an US troop carrier landed at Shannon with technical problems. This is a common occurrence with the chartered troop carriers that come through Shannon Airport. With an average of 1100 hundred troops going through Irelands second international airport on a nightly basis these aircraft are flat out ferrying young men and women to Iraq. Many of these stranded soldiers were billeted at the West County Hotel in Ennis near where peace activist Conor Cregan encountered six young US servicemen on the main Ennis to Limerick road.

Cregan immediately called for the six to stop. “I am placing you all under citizen’s arrest. Do not move” he shouted as the stunned men came to a halt. After assuring the men that they were not in jeopardy the peace activist made an emergency call to Ennis Garda Station. Cregan called for the Member in charge to send a van to pick up these awol soldiers but Garda O'Sullivan’s response was less than helpful. The deskbound officer was more interested to know if they were armed or their commander in chief George W Bush was among them. Mind you he wasn’t so funny when reminded that that all emergency calls were recorded.

Convinced that he wouldn’t get any joy from the Ennis Garda station Cregan went into the hotel to look for the Commanding Officer of the US troops. He approached a NCO but she could not see the man in charge but then Cregan spotted a familiar face coming towards him. DGda Jarlaith Fathy, a man who once tried to frame him for a crime he did not commit, was leaning over the reception desk.

Cregan called for the detective to take charge of the soldiers. Fathy followed him out to the front of the building where the six were sheepishly edging their way towards the entrance to the hotel. One polite young trooper leaned over and extended his hand towards the peace activist and apologized. Cregan again assured the young man that he was not in trouble and informed the lost patrol that in fact this was a diplomatic matter and that the Irish government was the wrongdoer in this situation. He thanked the men for their cooperation and left them in the hands of DGda Fathy who ushered them back into the hotel.

Later Conor Cregan registered a complaint with Superintendent John Kerin of Ennis Garda Station. Supt Kerin seemed surprised that anyone would complain about a foreign army walking the roads of Ireland and tried to convince that this was not a major issue. The top cop was more annoyed that Mr. Cregan had rang the Ennis Gardai Station on the 999 emergency line and informed him that he would be investigating the matter with a view to prosecute.

Later Conor Cregan returned to the West County Hotel to follow up this story. Standing outside the front entrance were three NCO’s, of the American Army, smoking cigarettes and a chat with a member of An Gardai Siochana. These young soldiers were enjoying their down time but complained about lack of heat. One soldier informed the reporter that “the weather would be a lot hotter in Texas” where she was from. She also said it was hot in Iraq and after their two week vacation she would be returning to duty in the middle-east war zone. Standing beside her was a friend from her home state and a sergeant from “Hollywood California” who would have liked to visit the town of Ennis but had no clothes to wear.
When asked why they were not allowed to leave the hotel she replied that “the people her might not like to see us”.

Another soldier dressed in “Army” shorts and T-shirt explained that they were invited to Ireland by the Irish Government.

When Conor Cregan started to clarify the nature of a neutral state like Ireland and the responsibilities that came with this status a member of An Gardai Siochana came over and just as he explained that under international law that all belligerent combatants should be interned under close arrest the young Ennis Guard asked him to identify himself.
“Conor Cregan and you are”
“I am a Guard that’s all you need to know”
“And Guard you don’t have any numbers on”
She replied to this sternly and ushered the US troops back into the hotel. After a while two another uniformed Garda and two plain clothes Garda arrive on the scene. The situation seemed to be in hand so this report left.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76801[/I]

This is the most hysterical thing I have read in a long time I love the pictures on the link; you can't pay for comedy to beat this.

Manic Moran

I love the pictures on the link

Hmm. They're out of uniform. Outdoors without a cover...

NTM

AbusesToilets

They've got a bit of an awning there,and they could be in a state of perpetual building entering

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

Context Tristrame context.

In the context of Irish law that makes it is illegal for a foreign army to be in public donning their colours; the actions of garda to usher the troops into the hotel therefore out of public view, is consistant with the view that Ennis is not within "the immediate vicinity" as stipulated in the Minister's Government Press Release of 2003. Therefore in this context the Gards validated Mr. Cregan's position, infact i'd hazard a guess that he feels 100% correct in his interpretation and i do too.

I'd say your post is consistent with your apparent view on the law .
Your view like Cregans is of course irrelevant when it is the Guards right to take the action that he merits as being resposnsible-he/she being the authority.
Regarding my original point about the ridiculousness of arguing that the guard "ushering" them into the hotel being a sign that their presence there was unlawfull-It was more than likely the Guard "ushering" them away from a loon and a potential altercation with that loon to be honest.

I thought that was in the context of proving that the US Embassy had or hadn't followed up this incident with Irish governemnt?
Like i said i can't prove that the US didn't appeal to the Irish Government over this. I said that that would be trying to prove a negative.

I see so you want to multiply citizens arrests by a billion then?
From my window I can see someone standing on the edge of someones property.
Should I rush over there now and arrest them on the risk that they are loitering prior to a break in or just call the guards?

This very idea was proposed by posters on your side of the debate, therefore i feel it's up to ye to provide the proof (that the US Embassy did in fact followup the incident with a complaint or request to the Irish Government).

Au contraire.We are merely asking that the assertion that Cregan was within his rights be backed up.
Now thats the job of the people defending his actions and not those protesting that the Gardaí have more right to judge that than Cregan.

Zambia

RedPlanet wrote:

Being charged with something is different than being convicted of it.

Why not cite the relevant case, perhaps some unfortunate suffered from an incompetent solicitor or something, at least let us scrutinize the merits of your allegation.

Insofar as the security companies, i never claimed Mr. Cregan could not be charged with wrongful arrest, so that point is moot.

You know for a fact he was just being an ass with to much time on his hands.

He regardless of the wording he had no legal reason to interfere with these soldiers or approach them in this manner. If he suspected them of the crime he arrested them for. He should have just rang the Gardai and gone on his way. Even the Gardai on their worst day can find a load of lads in full desert camo walking around Ennis.

RedPlanet

Tristrame wrote:

It was more than likely the Guard "ushering" them away from a loon and a potential altercation with that loon to be honest.

And yet twice the Gards chose to usher the troops back into the hotel they were staying at.
Why Tristrame, would the gards hassle the troops if they hadn't done anything wrong, instead of moving Mr. Cregan along?
Why also would they be moved into the hotel out of public view? Why not move the troops down the street?
Doesn't add up Tristrame.

Tristrame wrote:

I see so you want to multiply citizens arrests by a billion then?

No, like my post said, i thought the FOI request was to establish if the US Embassy followed up in some way, the situation in Ennis. You know, did they protest that their miscreants were not allowed into public view?
Insofar as establishing right or wrong on the part of the "citizen's arrest", tbh i'm not sure what a FOI request will do toward that end.
I think, claiming to make a citizen's arrest was probably just naivety on Mr. Cregan's part. If the US Embassy feel their troopers were wronged they can of course pursue damages. However i suspect we'd be seeing An Garda Síochána in the dock as it was their members that actually infringed upon the soldiers (alleged) rights by escorting them into the hotel (and probably asking them to stay out of public view)

RedPlanet

Zambia232 wrote:

You know for a fact he was just being an ass with to much time on his hands.

No, i wouldn't say he was an "ass", infact it sounds like he was rather polite to the soldiers. It's just that he took particular exception to their wearing foreign army uniforms in public view. As he is perfectly entitled to do in a free and democratic society.
Just like some resident may take a particular exception toward seeing a dog poo-ing on the footpath, and ring the gards over it. Sure, they may ignore a load of double parked cars to get there, and single out this one specific misdemeanor to report, but such is their right.

Zambia232 wrote:

He regardless of the wording he had no legal reason to interfere with these soldiers or approach them in this manner. If he suspected them of the crime he arrested them for. He should have just rang the Gardai and gone on his way. Even the Gardai on their worst day can find a load of lads in full desert camo walking around Ennis.

Yes it would probably have been better to just ring the gards over it but it sounds like he didn't believe the local garda station would apply the law.

Zambia

RedPlanet wrote:

No, i wouldn't say he was an "ass", infact it sounds like he was rather polite to the soldiers. It's just that he took particular exception to their wearing foreign army uniforms in public view. As he is perfectly entitled to do in a free and democratic society.
Just like some resident may take a particular exception toward seeing a dog poo-ing on the footpath, and ring the gards over it. Sure, they may ignore a load of double parked cars to get there, and single out this one specific misdemeanor to report, but such is their right.

Polite ! = Shouting “I am placing you all under citizen’s arrest. Do not move”

He can take exception all he likes, however he did not have the right to arrest anyone. I have already mentioned Sailors in foreign uniform in Dublin let him carry on his crusade there.

RedPlanet wrote:

Yes it would probably have been better to just ring the gards over it but it sounds like he didn't believe the local garda station would apply the law.

If the Gardai applied every law as rigidly as this implies the nations legal effectiveness would come to a standstill. Its a well known fact police forces in industrial disputes use this as a weapon.

RedPlanet

honestly Zambia232, if you had it your way it sounds like you'd have multitudes of foreign troops parading around in their uniforms "trashing" (was that a typo?) irish citizens that challenged them.

Should we put that down as having something to do with your upbringing in a territory that was virtually under military occupation?

Hagar

The sailor issue is slightly different methinks.

Usually they are walking about in the city that their ship is docked in. In Dublin for instance the ship would be within 5/10 minutes walk of O'Connell St not 13 miles away. Also the sailors I have seen are usually in full formal dress uniform not battle dress. A major difference.

We also do not know if permission was applied for and granted to the sailors to walk about in uniform so they may well be fully authorized to do so.

Liam Byrne

Tristrame wrote:

You think asking a legitimate question regarding how you arrive at your decision as to whether those troops are or are not lawfully in that hotel is off topic?

For feck's sake! "my decision [sic]as to "...WHAT ? There was NEVER any question over whether or not the troops are entitled to be in a hotel, or even in Ennis! What part of that sentence is not getting through to you ?

Can you please show me an actual quote from me where I indicated that that I had "....arrived at [that] decision" ? If there's any chance that someone could draw that conclusion from one of my posts I want to edit it to clarify the matter asap.

I made no such query or decision. And that is DEFINITELY a FACT.

The troops, like anyone else, are perfectly entitled to be ANYWHERE in the country that they like, just like any citizen or visitor or tourist. The legal issue is to at what stage they were legally obliged to abandon their uniforms and wear civilian clothes.

FOR THE LAST TIME. I, AT NO TIME, MADE ANY SUGGESTION OR DECISION THAT THE TROOPS MERELY "BEING IN ENNIS" OR "BEING IN A HOTEL" COULD POSSIBLY BE ILLEGAL. :rolleyes:

If they had stayed "in the immediate vicinity of Shannon Airport", they would have been entitled to both be/stay there AND to wear uniforms; the relative proximity (the measure of which was originally the ONLY thing open to debate from me) would then only relate to the uniforms, but NOT TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE TROOPS ACTUAL MOVEMENTS IF SUITABLY ATTIRED.

Comprendez ? If not, and if your reply contains similar misquotes and misrepresentation, then I'm sorry.....I really don't think I can make the above any clearer, and this is my third or fouth time trying.

P.S. This post is an attempt to clarify my position, which has been clearly misinterpreted or something given the way I've been misquoted, and in that context is hopefully on-topic.

Zambia

RedPlanet wrote:

honestly Zambia232, if you had it your way it sounds like you'd have multitudes of foreign troops parading around in their uniforms "trashing" (was that a typo?) irish citizens that challenged them.

Should we put that down as having something to do with your upbringing in a territory that was virtually under military occupation?

Unless foreign troops are committing crimes worthy of interference , citizens in Ireland in peacetime have no business stopping foreign troops.

As for your second point ... you can save that for another thread there is no shortage of them.

Zambia

Hagar wrote:

The sailor issue is slightly different methinks.

Usually they are walking about in the city that their ship is docked in. In Dublin for instance the ship would be within 5/10 minutes walk of O'Connell St not 13 miles away. Also the sailors I have seen are usually in full formal dress uniform not battle dress. A major difference.

We also do not know if permission was applied for and granted to the sailors to walk about in uniform so they may well be fully authorized to do so.

Sorry Hagar missed that post either way it's not as if their doing any harm. As for Battle dress that's not exactly full webbing and helmet in this case.

Fratton Fred

sooo, am I ok wearing my combat shorts on Sandycove beach or would that be classed as an amphibious invasion?

Manic Moran

As for Battle dress that's not exactly full webbing and helmet in this case.

I seem to recall a year or two ago a rumour that the Defence Forces were going to abandon Number 1 uniforms as a cost-cutting measure. Thus Guards of Honour, Parades, and so on, would have been done in combats.

Fortunately, nothing came of it.

NTM