Questions about Gardai and there methods

Evo

Hi,
Just wanted a few answers on some things involving the Gardai .

1) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda car weather its parked or moving?

2) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda walking , making an arrest or involved in something (questioning, breaking up a fight, etc )

3) Can they just grab you and put you in the back of a garda car without saying anything? Even if you were involved in say a fight.

4) Are you allowed to record a conversation you have with a Garda say if you were pulled over by the traffic corps or if they are questioning you.

5) Are they allowed to swear at you?

6) Can you demand a witness if they are arresting you and what do you do if they deny you one (providing the answer to the first part is yes)

7) If your pulled over for speeding, and they are using a speed gun, can't you request to see a calibration cert ?

8) Are they allowed to park on double yellow lines even if its outside their own station?

just some questions I had floating around my head..

Gobán Saor

Answers in bold below.

Evo wrote: »

Hi,
Just wanted a few answers on some things involving the Gardai .

1) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda car weather its parked or moving? Yes, as long as you're not obstructing them or you've been issued with an instruction eg to leave the area under the Public Order Act

2) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda walking , making an arrest or involved in something (questioning, breaking up a fight, etc ) Yes, as long as you're not obstructing them or you've been issued with an instruction eg to leave the area under the Public Order Act

3) Can they just grab you and put you in the back of a garda car without saying anything? Even if you were involved in say a fight. No. They must say why they're arresting you. Assuming you're compos mentis enough to comprehend it. Depending on the circumstances, eg if you struggle or resist arrest they may need to subdue you first!

4) Are you allowed to record a conversation you have with a Garda say if you were pulled over by the traffic corps or if they are questioning you. Yes - and you don't have to inform the Garda

5) Are they allowed to swear at you? While probably not illegal, per se, unless its threatening, it's probably of breach of the standards expected or perhaps a breach of internal Garda regulations. You could complain to the Garda Ombudsman. It's not enough to make your arrest/confession/search illegal on its own

6) Can you demand a witness if they are arresting you and what do you do if they deny you one (providing the answer to the first part is yes) No and nothing

7) If your pulled over for speeding, and they are using a speed gun, can't you request to see a calibration cert ? Not sure.

8) Are they allowed to park on double yellow lines even if its outside their own station? Yes, in the course of their duty. This includes using their own cars in the course of their duty. It does not include parking their own cars while then going to work.

just some questions I had floating around my head..

seamus

Evo wrote: »

7) If your pulled over for speeding, and they are using a speed gun, can't you request to see a calibration cert ?

No. There is no requirement on the part of the Garda to prove that the gun has been calibrated (there's a statute on it, hopefully someone else will post it).

Turner

Evo wrote: »

Hi,
Just wanted a few answers on some things involving the Gardai .

1) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda car weather its parked or moving? Yes

2) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda walking , making an arrest or involved in something (questioning, breaking up a fight, etc ) Yes, but if the gardai think that something is on that video that might show them in a bad light they can seize your camera and say they are seizing it as evidence of the offence

3) Can they just grab you and put you in the back of a garda car without saying anything? Even if you were involved in say a fight. Technically no but its not always possible to tell somebody they are being arrested and caution same and take a note of their response, say in the course of a schmozzle or riot or dragging somebody from an overturned and on fire stolen car

4) Are you allowed to record a conversation you have with a Garda say if you were pulled over by the traffic corps or if they are questioning you. yes

5) Are they allowed to swear at you? allowed no, not by management and can de disciplined for it but it would be very rare for a garda to be disciplined for this. Both senior management and the ombudsman (all former police from around the world) know what goes on on the street. Its not a nice world out there.

6) Can you demand a witness if they are arresting you and what do you do if they deny you one (providing the answer to the first part is yes) absolutely not

7) If your pulled over for speeding, and they are using a speed gun, can't you request to see a calibration cert ? no they do not have to prove in court anymore that the gun was sufficiently calibarated

8) Are they allowed to park on double yellow lines even if its outside their own station? obviously yes whats the point of having a response garda car parked 500m down the street, they are also allowed park on double yellows outside chippers, and while on duty using their own vehicles and they can talk on their phones while driving and are exempt from speeding (not driving dangerously or drink driving)

just some questions I had floating around my head..

Answers in bold too. Doesnt just apply to Gardai, applies to all emergency service vehicles.

johnnyskeleton

Evo wrote: »

6) Can you demand a witness if they are arresting you and what do you do if they deny you one (providing the answer to the first part is yes)

I'm going to be controversial and say yes - if you are a child (and possibly of unsound mind) you are entitled to have a parent or guardian present while being questioned while in custody and if they are not available they will get a peace commissioner to sit in. If they don't do this then a judge can find that the interview is inadmissable at trial.

Evo

thanks for the replies

another question, what should you do if you asked a garda to identify themselves and they refuse , like say something like stop being cheaky ?

also if they want to search your car they have to say so under the drugs act or something?

johnnyskeleton

Evo wrote: »

another question, what should you do if you asked a garda to identify themselves and they refuse , like say something like stop being cheaky ?

Depends on whether you're bothered or not. You could ring the local garda station and say that there is a person there who claims to be a garda but refuses to identify themselves.

Evo wrote: »

also if they want to search your car they have to say so under the drugs act or something?

They can't search your car (or you) without either a) your consent or b) invoking a power to search the car (or you) and informing you of same. One of these powers is the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977.

FGR

A Garda is not obliged to give you his/her full name. Their shoulder or registration number will suffice.

Also - There is no lawful requirement to have a witness present when someone is being arrested. The only time a witness is required is during the detention of either a juvenile or someone who is mentally incapable of representing themselves.

backonceagain

one more for the list,

Do you have to answer questions to gardai on the street? If plain clothes cops stop you and ask who are and where you live etc, do you have to answer them? Are you allowed to just walk away essentially?

McCrack

backonceagain wrote: »

one more for the list,

Do you have to answer questions to gardai on the street? If plain clothes cops stop you and ask who are and where you live etc, do you have to answer them? Are you allowed to just walk away essentially?

No you do not have to answer any of their questions. A garda is entitled however to approach anybody in a public place and ask details name/ where you going etc. but you do not have to answer.
.
Essentially you are only obliged to give your name/address if arrested, if stopped driving a vehicle in a public place eg at a checkpoint or if the member is conducting a drugs search under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 in which case they must have "reasonable cause".

Any other questions such as what you had for dinner or favourite colour you do not have to answer if you dont want to even if you have been arrested...as a general rule remember the caution the arresting garda must advise ie "you do not have to say anything but anything you do say blahdeblah"

pirelli

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=DytIyFgtvKI&feature=related


I dont know if anyone has heard of Jimmy Justice. He films police illegally parking which in new york he is entitled to tell em that.

Just to add on to the list of questions in regard to the gardai. I remember thes question about filming the gardai was asked before on this forum.

In regard to filming the gardai, the post explained that you are not allowed to film the gardai entering or leaving any premises that could be their place of work or their residence. Is that correct , Can you film the gardai leaving and entering a building?

lennox1

pirelli wrote: »

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=DytIyFgtvKI&feature=related


I dont know if anyone has heard of Jimmy Justice. He films police illegally parking which in new york he is entitled to tell em that.

Just to add on to the list of questions in regard to the gardai. I remember thes question about filming the gardai was asked before on this forum.

In regard to filming the gardai, the post explained that you are not allowed to film the gardai entering or leaving any premises that could be their place of work or their residence. Is that correct , Can you film the gardai leaving and entering a building?

As someone who lives in the same house as a Garda,if you wish to film said Garda at this building,feel free to do so before you have to attend the local hospital to have the camera painfully removed from somewhere the sun don't shine.And.........I'm not joking.

McCrack

lennox1 wrote: »

As someone who lives in the same house as a Garda,if you wish to film said Garda at this building,feel free to do so before you have to attend the local hospital to have the camera painfully removed from somewhere the sun don't shine.And.........I'm not joking.

Oh O...

Is that threat a s2(1) assault I wonder???

tut tut

Victor

McCrack wrote: »

No you do not have to answer any of their questions. A garda is entitled however to approach anybody in a public place and ask details name/ where you going etc. but you do not have to answer.
.
Essentially you are only obliged to give your name/address if arrested, if stopped driving a vehicle in a public place eg at a checkpoint or if the member is conducting a drugs search under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 in which case they must have "reasonable cause".

Any other questions such as what you had for dinner or favourite colour you do not have to answer if you dont want to even if you have been arrested...as a general rule remember the caution the arresting garda must advise ie "you do not have to say anything but anything you do say blahdeblah"

The above are a gross misrepresentation of the law. There are many piece of legislation, some as simple as the Luas Bye-Laws that require you to give your name. The Offences Against the State Act can be used as a catch all.

McCrack

Victor wrote: »

The above are a gross misrepresentation of the law. There are many piece of legislation, some as simple as the Luas Bye-Laws that require you to give your name. The Offences Against the State Act can be used as a catch all.

Yes there are other pieces of legislation but the original question was does an individual have to give their name/address to a Garda who walks up to them on the street and demands. I cited instances where the member is empowered to demand such info. I don't think I am wrong. If I am please correct me don't just say it's a "gross misrep." and leave it at that.

Also I hardly think a member is going to use the OSA to extact name/address off little Johnny in the burberry cap in fairness.

TheNog

McCrack wrote: »

No you do not have to answer any of their questions. A garda is entitled however to approach anybody in a public place and ask details name/ where you going etc. but you do not have to answer.
.
Essentially you are only obliged to give your name/address if arrested, if stopped driving a vehicle in a public place eg at a checkpoint or if the member is conducting a drugs search under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 in which case they must have "reasonable cause".

And don't forget under the Public ORder Act if a garda witnesses you or has reasonable cause to believe you committed an offence under said act, a garda demand your name and address. So yes a garda can walk up to you on the street and ask you your name and address but only if you committed an offence.

backonceagain

at which point they would have to tell you what the offense was anyway, so it works both ways. If they can't tell you what offense you have committed then it's still a no.

copperdaz

you seem to be obsessed in recording people in uniform. you should ask yourself would you like to be filmed if you were in uniform. if you say no then why are you thinking of recording something that might help your defence for being pulled over, it wont all it does is piss off the garda and rase their suspicion that you have done something wrong.

if your wrong then your wrong. recording the police wont change that.

recording police vehicles in public is not a criminal offence but recording police stations is an offence. the recording of police vehicles could also lead to questions regarding your interest in their movements. in short is it worth it.

Rember the police are doing a job. i dont know what you work at but can you imagine if you worked in a office designed to help the public, a person walks into where you work and starts to record what you are doing and saying without asking your permission. how would you feal...

bryanmurr

1) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda car weather its parked or moving?why would ya want to?

2) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda walking , making an arrest or involved in something (questioning, breaking up a fight, etc )why would ya want to?

3) Can they just grab you and put you in the back of a garda car without saying anything? Even if you were involved in say a fight.you would be informed why you are arrested as soon as it is reasonably possible

4) Are you allowed to record a conversation you have with a Garda say if you were pulled over by the traffic corps or if they are questioning you.why would ya want to?

5) Are they allowed to swear at you?Not supposed to

6) Can you demand a witness if they are arresting you and what do you do if they deny you one (providing the answer to the first part is yes)No

7) If your pulled over for speeding, and they are using a speed gun, can't you request to see a calibration cert ?No thats for the day in court

8) Are they allowed to park on double yellow lines even if its outside their own station? Yes

Johnny Utah

bryanmurr wrote: »

1) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda car weather its parked or moving?why would ya want to?

2) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda walking , making an arrest or involved in something (questioning, breaking up a fight, etc )why would ya want to?

3) Can they just grab you and put you in the back of a garda car without saying anything? Even if you were involved in say a fight.you would be informed why you are arrested as soon as it is reasonably possible

4) Are you allowed to record a conversation you have with a Garda say if you were pulled over by the traffic corps or if they are questioning you.why would ya want to?

Why?

Well, maybe, a cop will think twice about abusing his power if he knows he's being recorded. And, of course, they'll always give ID when asked :rolleyes:



It's amazing that a video recorder can put some manners on some members. Look at this smarmy little prick here, for example...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSumJ-X1h8A



Look at the way he reacts; he can't even speak properly. "Hugs and kisses"- what a to$$er :pac:

copperdaz

this video shows a shell to sea protester being treated with respect. it is evedent that the person holding the camera has no respect towards the police officer in this case otherwise he would have acted with respect and stoped the video. IF the person with the video has done nothing wrong then why is it he feels compeled to record the police officer. It is the police officers job to record the names of person who are blocking the petrol station and preventing the public from using its sesrvices. In this video the police used his experence and knowlage of subversive groups ,established under a republican flag to deal with a person whos actions and are designed to provoke the police into a responce. If anything this video showl the police in a positive light and shows the methods the "protesters" are willing to use in an attempt to fustrate the investigations of the police.
If the person is protesting as part of a so called "republician" group he has the power to demand names and address from those people engaged in the blockade. The person in this video may be part of this group who dont recognise the good friday agrement and are themselves with republican SF. all this video shows is the experence of the officer in dealing with difficult people. Do you realy think that the absence of a camera would have produced a diffrent responce from the police officer. If you do then your view on the police is tainted by watching to much tv and reading the papers. there are 12000+ police in ireland from all walk of life and parts of the country some are even from other countries. it is a very big statment on your part if you say they would all react in the same way when dealing with people in the same way as in the video. As for the video you linked, it is officers like this that protect the people of ireland from groups that call for the removal of the Dail and the continued armed strugle against England. So who do you want to be in your corner?

dothis

copperdaz wrote: »

this video shows a shell to sea protester being treated with respect. it is evedent that the person holding the camera has no respect towards the police officer in this case otherwise he would have acted with respect and stoped the video. IF the person with the video has done nothing wrong then why is it he feels compeled to record the police officer. It is the police officers job to record the names of person who are blocking the petrol station and preventing the public from using its sesrvices. In this video the police used his experence and knowlage of subversive groups ,established under a republican flag to deal with a person whos actions and are designed to provoke the police into a responce. If anything this video showl the police in a positive light and shows the methods the "protesters" are willing to use in an attempt to fustrate the investigations of the police.
If the person is protesting as part of a so called "republician" group he has the power to demand names and address from those people engaged in the blockade. The person in this video may be part of this group who dont recognise the good friday agrement and are themselves with republican SF. all this video shows is the experence of the officer in dealing with difficult people. Do you realy think that the absence of a camera would have produced a diffrent responce from the police officer. If you do then your view on the police is tainted by watching to much tv and reading the papers. there are 12000+ police in ireland from all walk of life and parts of the country some are even from other countries. it is a very big statment on your part if you say they would all react in the same way when dealing with people in the same way as in the video. As for the video you linked, it is officers like this that protect the people of ireland from groups that call for the removal of the Dail and the continued armed strugle against England. So who do you want to be in your corner?

The police officer in this video in my opinion was being unprofestional he was threatening to abuse the power he had and was ridiculing the rights held by those under the Republic which you espouse.

Videoing the police is a useful tool in trying to stop abuse of police powers. After all there are very serious concerns over the way the police conduct themselves in this State and videoing them as servants of the People goes towards ensuring the police remain lawful.

copperdaz

point well made but its just that your opinion. what is it based on. if i may say its based on what you expect a police officer to act like but how do you form this opinion? what is it basedon? i would put it to you that the person who was filming this police person it appears came over to them while sitting in their car( as stated in the video). I put it to you therefor that the person went over to the car with the two police officers in it. it seems that there was no interaction with the parties before he started filming. The point is therefor if the police are not interfering with his protest why did the person filming go over to them if they were not doing anything but sitting in their car. my opinion is the purpose of the filming of this video regardless of content was designed to provoke a responce from the poilce. If it is the "champioins of justice" members of the public to expose illegal actions of the police then it is to do this when the police do these actions and them act to stop, this video it is the persons action in going over to the police and attempting to envoke a responce is the problem i have. In other words the person filming is looking for trouble. What would happen if the two men sitting in this car were not police officers and instead were oter members of the public who would think nothing of getting out of their car assaulting the person with the video and taking it )(the camera) of him. in other words the person again was fully aware of what he was doing and his intentions were far from noble. I make the point again why do the police have to put up with people like this when they are only sitting in their car, who knows these officers may have been only coffee in the shop at the time. your argument does not stand up its very week.

dothis

copperdaz wrote: »

point well made but its just that your opinion. what is it based on. if i may say its based on what you expect a police officer to act like but how do you form this opinion? what is it basedon?

I expect a police officer to act in accordance with the law. I expect a police officer to be respectful. I expect a police officer to to rise to provacation if there is any.

i would put it to you that the person who was filming this police person it appears came over to them while sitting in their car( as stated in the video). I put it to you therefor that the person went over to the car with the two police officers in it. it seems that there was no interaction with the parties before he started filming. The point is therefor if the police are not interfering with his protest why did the person filming go over to them if they were not doing anything but sitting in their car.

First, If you are being observed by people in a car you may want to know why you are being observed. This is normal thing. I am sure it has happend many times--people have approached the police in a protest to ask them questions just in the case it was filmed.

Secondly, the person needs no reason to go over to the police and film them after all this is a Republic and these people are public servants.

There are loads of reasons for him to approach the police in this situation.

my opinion is the purpose of the filming of this video regardless of content was designed to provoke a responce from the poilce.

I don't think so I think the purpose of this video was to document the police and how the resonded to him.

If it is the "champioins of justice" members of the public to expose illegal actions of the police then it is to do this when the police do these actions and them act to stop, this video it is the persons action in going over to the police and attempting to envoke a responce is the problem i have. In other words the person filming is looking for trouble.

I really don't think so I think they were just trying to ensure that they were treated within the parameters of curtosy and according to the law. And if not to document it for evidence.

What would happen if the two men sitting in this car were not police officers and instead were oter members of the public who would think nothing of getting out of their car assaulting the person with the video and taking it )(the camera) of him. in other words the person again was fully aware of what he was doing and his intentions were far from noble.

I would hope they would be prosectued for s2 assault and theft.

I make the point again why do the police have to put up with people like this when they are only sitting in their car, who knows these officers may have been only coffee in the shop at the time.

Because they are police and we have the right to do it.

your argument does not stand up its very week.

I think that the police force in this country really need to be recored more and for these recordings to be used to take action to stop them from breaking the law--beating people seems to be quite a common practice within the force and I think if more people taped their encounters with the police we could stop a lot of this. I think a Cop Watch would be welcome here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copwatch

copperdaz

dothis wrote: »

I expect a police officer to act in accordance with the law. I expect a police officer to be respectful. I expect a police officer to to rise to provacation if there is any.

i would think that works both ways.....

First, If you are being observed by people in a car you may want to know why you are being observed. This is normal thing. I am sure it has happend many times--people have approached the police in a protest to ask them questions just in the case it was filmed.

again in the case of this video there is no evidence thats what the police were doing! in general is it the police they are protesting or shell make your mind up.

Secondly, the person needs no reason to go over to the police and film them after all this is a Republic and these people are public servants.

There are loads of reasons for him to approach the police in this situation.

name one, the person in this video the only reason was to provoke a responce , in general yes you can talk to the police but they also have the right not to talk to you.




I don't think so I think the purpose of this video was to document the police and how the resonded to him.

again did you ask them if you could film them? no evedence of this in the video. you talk alto about rights have yoou forgotten the rights of the police officers and there privicy. by putting there face on a public web site you endanger their life and their familys.... what about their rights? or have you convently forgot about that point. or does it not matter atfer all as there only police and we can treat them anyway we like.



I really don't think so I think they were just trying to ensure that they were treated within the parameters of curtosy and according to the law. And if not to document it for evidence.

ok evidence of what? is there an alleged offence being committed by these police officers sitting in their car?


I would hope they would be prosectued for s2 assault and theft.

yes but that person put himself in danger and for what. you miss the point.


Because they are police and we have the right to do it.

where does that right come from. is it the position that regular people have superior rights over the police. explain that one itsw not clear.

I think that the police force in this country really need to be recored more and for these recordings to be used to take action to stop them from breaking the law--beating people seems to be quite a common practice within the force and I think if more people taped their encounters with the police we could stop a lot of this. I think a Cop Watch would be welcome here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copwatch

wow thats a big statment whats it based on. how many cases of assault have there been involving police who were convicted when you say "it seems common" you have to back up your arguments.

Johnny Utah

copperdaz wrote: »

this video shows a shell to sea protester being treated with respect. it is evedent that the person holding the camera has no respect towards the police officer in this case otherwise he would have acted with respect and stoped the video. IF the person with the video has done nothing wrong then why is it he feels compeled to record the police officer. It is the police officers job to record the names of person who are blocking the petrol station and preventing the public from using its sesrvices. In this video the police used his experence and knowlage of subversive groups ,established under a republican flag to deal with a person whos actions and are designed to provoke the police into a responce. If anything this video showl the police in a positive light and shows the methods the "protesters" are willing to use in an attempt to fustrate the investigations of the police.
If the person is protesting as part of a so called "republician" group he has the power to demand names and address from those people engaged in the blockade. The person in this video may be part of this group who dont recognise the good friday agrement and are themselves with republican SF. all this video shows is the experence of the officer in dealing with difficult people. Do you realy think that the absence of a camera would have produced a diffrent responce from the police officer. If you do then your view on the police is tainted by watching to much tv and reading the papers. there are 12000+ police in ireland from all walk of life and parts of the country some are even from other countries. it is a very big statment on your part if you say they would all react in the same way when dealing with people in the same way as in the video. As for the video you linked, it is officers like this that protect the people of ireland from groups that call for the removal of the Dail and the continued armed strugle against England. So who do you want to be in your corner?

Obviously, they don't teach spelling or punctuation in Templemore...

copperdaz wrote: »

wow thats a big statment whats it based on. how many cases of assault have there been involving police who were convicted when you say "it seems common" you have to back up your arguments.

Found this with a quick search.....

The Sunday Tribune recently reported that in the year 2002 one million euro will be paid by the state in out-of-court settlements to dozens of people who are suing the Gardai for false arrest or imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution. Six million euro has been paid out in compensation over the past five years for breach of citizens' rights by Gardai. Cases settled out of court are not reported and plaintiffs sign confidentiality agreements, so such matters conveniently do not reach the papers. In addition to the 6 million euro paid out to citizens abused by Gardai, the taxpayer also the pays the costs of compensation for Gardai injured while on duty. Currently 1,500 Gardai (14% of the force) are suing the State for such compensation and the final cost is expected to top 80 million euro, which works out as an average payout of 40,000 euro per individual guard." http://www.fourthwrite.ie/mags1.html


It's a bit old, but my point is made.

copperdaz

im not from templemore never been there but this shows when you cant argue the point ,attack the person making it. so long as you understand what i typed thats fine by me. you presume i am in the police, again you are wrong, sorry. it shows you have no reply to my arguments and ill take that as the limit knowlage on the subject. you seem to have run out of steam like most people who share your views on goverment and the establishment. shame
as for your your other point

yes it is old. but like people who share you views they use selective history to support your arguments. How many complaints that are made about police end up in court as a hearing (civil or criminal) when you have that answer you will understand why you point is one sided. so thats your home work for tonight.
there is a complaints organisation now for the police, they are the ones to investigate complaints not the public like the person with the camera on that video.

Johnny Utah

copperdaz wrote: »

im not from templemore never been there but this shows when you cant argue the point ,attack the person making it. so long as you understand what i typed thats fine by me. you presume i am in the police, again you are wrong, sorry. it shows you have no reply to my arguments and ill take that as the limit knowlage on the subject. you seem to have run out of steam like most people who share your views on goverment and the establishment. shame
as for your your other point

I'm not attacking you, just you're atrocious punctuation.;) It's hard to read some of your posts.




yes it is old. but like people who share you views they use selective history to support your arguments. How many complaints that are made about police end up in court as a hearing (civil or criminal) when you have that answer you will understand why you point is one sided. so thats your home work for tonight.


Okay, re-read my last post very carefully, and you may understand why so few complaints end up in court.





there is a complaints organisation now for the police, they are the ones to investigate complaints not the public like the person with the camera on that video.

The guy in the video wasn't investigating a complaint.

........

Trojan911

Johnny Utah wrote: »

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSumJ-X1h8A

Having watched the clip, I would say the officer showed great restraint towards a person who was very obviously acting in a provocative manner. This person (videoman) was clearly, in my opinion, looking for confrontation.

The only mistake I would say the officer made was to engage in conversation with this person.

dothis

copperdaz wrote: »

wow thats a big statment whats it based on. how many cases of assault have there been involving police who were convicted when you say "it seems common" you have to back up your arguments.

I suggest you rea the reports carried out by the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/states/irl.htm

They have said the a person held in the custody of the police in ireland run a not-inconsiderable rick of being physically ill treated.

copperdaz

Johnny Utah wrote: »

........

the reason these cases turn out out the way they do is becouse the state do not contest the cases as legal costs to defend the action out weigh the payments made. its not a non disclousure agrement its an agrement that the compensation is payed with the courts approvel and a stamnent of no libility being admitted on behalf of the state. its like when hospitals make payments due to medical procedures going wrong. the hospital makes the payment with no libility being admited.

so in other words its cheaper for the state to pay the person complaining about the police then to fight it in the courts. this is not true for all cases but it is the norm, it comes down to the cost of defending the allogation vs the cost to the state retaining a senior or junior council over a number of days in the high court.

as a result of this the figures for money payed do not represent the guilt of the police officer concerned in the complaint it is a payment from the state to the member of the public. you should be very carefull in using newspapers figures and facts as reported figures given in newspapers usually represent bottom line costs and do not give a breakdown of the cases concerned. if you have this breakdown you would see what i mean.
again i say how many cases civil or criminal have members of the police been found guilty of?

as for the 14% of the police suing the state for damages this shows the dangers that they face on a daly basis. can you point to any other profession that are injured so often. Even the army in a war zone dont get as much injuries as the civil police in this country. if anything it shown how dangerous a job they have to put up with. in other words i dont see why they would have to put up with plonckers with video camers videoing them for no reason or in the hope they do something wrong.
you say
"The guy in the video wasn't investigating a complaint

SO WHY FILM THEM!?
again why was he determined to video police officers sitting in their car. it demonstrates this person lack of respect for people regardless of whether they are police or not.

the last comment is right the police officer should have rolled up this window and ignored the fool with the camera. i guess then you would say he was being rude or something like that.

the_syco

Johnny Utah wrote: »

It's amazing that a video recorder can put some manners on some members. Look at this smarmy little prick here, for example...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSumJ-X1h8A

LOL. What's the bet the guy in the car was a Shell employee, or security employed by shell, to ensure that someone didn't start to get violent, and/or damage Shell property.

Lets see... bunch of protesters form outside a Shell station. To protect it's property, security are sent out, to ensure no property damage. Some muppet comes over, assuming that the boys in the car are part of secret service, and questions as such. Dude in the car is non-confrontational and when camera man looks like he's going to get violent, the car moves off (and probably comes back a minute later).

=-=
Oh, and here's the beauty of your stats: 5 people, each claiming €200,000 equals one million. 5 claims against the Gardai ain't much, is it?

copperdaz

o please you carry a risk of ill treatment every day of your life by walking down the street. reports like this always find very vague findings. im sure that their existance is important and they wish for that to continue so in other words they will always find room for improvement. it would be pointless for them to come out a say what a great worldd we live in.

"not-inconsiderable rick of being physically ill treated"
not inconsiderable risk thats very vague findings ill have a look at the report but if you have read it where in the world did they say had no chance of this happening?
in other words touch of real life please. police deal with people who a drunk violent and non co-operative and intent on avoiding being arrested. only in " murder she wrote" do the murders make full confesssions and come along peacefully every time. omletts and eggs my friend. reports have vested interests no matter how noble their aims are.

masterwriter

lennox1 wrote: »

if you wish to film said Garda at this building,feel free to do so before you have to attend the local hospital to have the camera painfully removed from somewhere the sun don't shine.And.........I'm not joking.

would that not be an assault and abuse of power?

dothis

copperdaz wrote: »

o please you carry a risk ay of your life by walking down the street. reports like this always find very vague findings. im sure that their existance isof ill treatment every d important and they wish for that to continue so in other words they will always find room for improvement. it would be pointless for them to come out a say what a great worldd we live in.

Are you saying that the Council of Europe are deliberately slandering the Irish Police force? You are the one going to have to back that up.

"not-inconsiderable rick of being physically ill treated"
not inconsiderable risk thats very vague findings ill have a look at the report but if you have read it where in the world did they say had no chance of this happening?

I haven't read the reports of every country I'm afraid.

in other words touch of real life please. police deal with people who a drunk violent and non co-operative and intent on avoiding being arrested. only in " murder she wrote" do the murders make full confesssions and come along peacefully every time. omletts and eggs my friend.

Are you saying that people deserve to be tortured?

[/quote]reports have vested interests no matter how noble their aims are.[/quote]

And the US government were responsible for 9/11. Not everything is a conspiracy.

copperdaz

dothis wrote: »

Are you saying that the Council of Europe are deliberately slandering the Irish Police force? You are the one going to have to back that up.
No who mentioned slander?back what up?


I haven't read the reports of every country I'm afraid.


though so! might be worth a look maybe then you can draw comparisions. arguments can only be made in comparison not in isolation.

Are you saying that people deserve to be tortured?
ok where did that come from that was never said. obvously the answer is no but i dont see how that point fits. this is about videoing police not torture.

reports have vested interests no matter how noble their aims are.[/quote]

And the US government were responsible for 9/11. Not everything is a conspiracy.[/quote]
sorry no one mentioned conspiracy. if you have a job of assessing a project would you tell the boss its working great no problems to report or would you also outline improvements that could be made. if its the first then you may not last long in you role in the assesment of projects. thats the point. interests groups always show room for improvement thats what they do. that is a group who job is to improve a subject matter will always find the problems ,critasise and recommend improvements. thats why they are established. you get it ?or shall we go over it again?

dothis

sorry no one mentioned conspiracy. if you have a job of assessing a project would you tell the boss its working great no problems to report or would you also outline improvements that could be made. if its the first then you may not last long in you role in the assesment of projects. thats the point. interests groups always show room for improvement thats what they do. that is a group who job is to improve a subject matter will always find the problems ,critasise and recommend improvements. thats why they are established. you get it ?or shall we go over it again?

Before you get all condescending on us there pal. I suggest you read the terms of reference on the CPT it is not their job to fix human rights abuse just report on the status in the Memeber States every few years regardless of the facts of their last report.

And to suggest that they are saying the police in Ireland are beating people to keep their jobs is frankly a bit on a loony thing to say without and evidence or any knowledge of what the CPT is. The European Court of Human Rights is also a Council of Europe project are you saying that they are leaving some human rights abuse in order to maintain some work for themselves?

I think you should read up on the Council of Europe before saying that they are a bunch of liars.

Do you understand?

copperdaz

dothis wrote: »

Before you get all condescending on us there pal. I suggest you read the terms of reference on the CPT it is not their job to fix human rights abuse just report on the status in the Member States every few years regardless of the facts of their last report.

never said their job was to fix they report on their subject matter. the identify problems and sugest changes. thats what they do.

And to suggest that they are saying the police in Ireland are beating people to keep their jobs is frankly a bit on a loony thing to say without and evidence or any knowledge of what the CPT is. The European Court of Human Rights is also a Council of Europe project are you saying that they are leaving some human rights abuse in order to maintain some work for themselves?

never said that the police are beating up people to save their job! and no never saidthat read my post. also you are making apoint i never did ,read my post.

I think you should read up on the Council of Europe before saying that they are a bunch of liars.
never said they were liars can you show me where i said that. please this is the 3rd time you have credited me with a misquote. it is the role of reports to identify recommend and advise changes to be made. their is always room to change and improve this is why you will never have a report that states their is nothing to change or improve.
Do you understand?

yes but you seem to be having problems dont attach your views to my posts when these point are not contained in what i said. this is common in arguments where the opposing side runs out of arguments and attempts to invent some.........

lennox1

masterwriter wrote: »

would that not be an assault and abuse of power?

I am not a Garda so abuse of power doesn't apply.However my home is sacrosanct to me and my family. Anyone who violates my peace or that of my family by filming my Garda relative for any reason at my home better know that I will not tolerate it.And I am more than willing to face any consequences of any action I take.

masterwriter

lennox1 wrote: »

I am not a Garda so abuse of power doesn't apply.However my home is sacrosanct to me and my family. Anyone who violates my peace or that of my family by filming my Garda relative for any reason at my home better know that I will not tolerate it.

are the rights to film gardai different in your house because you live there and it is 'sacrosanct to me and my family'. maybe the cop should leave

And I am more than willing to face any consequences of any action I take.

good you may have to but at least if you assault anyone you have a cop there to arrest you - unless he will abuse his power and let you off ;-)

copperdaz

yes you home is protected under the constitution from intrusion. the question is not if you could but if you should video a person home. personaly there is no reason to do so and then post it on the internet.

lennox1

copperdaz wrote: »

yes you home is protected under the constitution from intrusion. the question is not if you could but if you should video a person home. personaly there is no reason to do so and then post it on the internet.

Unfortunately some people feel that Gardai and their families don't have any rights.I am determined that our rights will be protected and will take any action I feel is warranted to ensure we are also protected.

copperdaz

i agree vigalanty extremest groups opperate under a guise of in the public interest, and often forget their views on their actions are not shared by the majority of the public. law enforcement is the job of the police and the protection of you family is more important than that so i agree with this view.

pirelli

copperdaz wrote: »

but can you imagine if you worked in a office designed to help the public, a person walks into where you work and starts to record what you are doing and saying without asking your permission. how would you feal...

If I was cia and they gave me any gruff about it they would then be arrested and deported to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation, an action now approved by the irish authorities. The cia would also have a big file of their private activities as well as their families and friends internet usage and other private data, which was provided by the Irish authorities. Probably including photographs of them standing outside shell garage protesting.

Thanks for asking how we would feel about something copperdaz before going right ahead and giving away our freedoms to the americanos.

copperdaz wrote: »

recording police vehicles in public is not a criminal offence but recording police stations is an offence. the recording of police vehicles could also lead to questions regarding your interest in their movements. in short is it worth it.

Besides Copperdaz didn't you say it is illegal to film a garda station, the analogy is rather pointless then, I do sympathise with a citizens right to privacy.

pirelli

the_syco wrote: »

LOL.
=-=
Oh, and here's the beauty of your stats: 5 people, each claiming €200,000 equals one million. 5 claims against the Gardai ain't much, is it?

A senior counsel employed by the state would not cost 200,000 euro. It would perhaps cost several thousand euro. Perhaps syco you know soemthing about settling claims we don't.

Copperdaz suggested it was cheaper to settle out of court. Cheaper for the person suing perhaps, but wouldn't be cheaper for the state. If it was settled through litigation it was because there was a not too inconsderable probability that the plantiff would have won.

Thus far from experience it seems that the state are will fight even cases that they are going to lose, so as not to admit anything. They are quite hard to get an apology from. It took twenty years for the victims of abuse to get an apology. It's hard to get an apology from the state. Please don't be naive.

lennox1

masterwriter wrote: »

are the rights to film gardai different in your house because you live there and it is 'sacrosanct to me and my family'. maybe the cop should leave
good you may have to but at least if you assault anyone you have a cop there to arrest you - unless he will abuse his power and let you off ;-)

Yes my home is sacrosanct and if you can't accept the idea that I will protect it,and the people who live there and will continue to live there,and face any consequences of my actions .....that's a problem for you to deal with.
If I break the law,I expect that my Garda relative would uphold his oath to apply the law without fear or favour as he has always done and let the courts decide the merits of the case.

So now Masterwriter,I have enunciated my views to you and as we seem to be at polar opposites in our views,I will stop here as we could end up going round in circles and that would be tedious.

dothis

copperdaz wrote: »

yes but you seem to be having problems dont attach your views to my posts when these point are not contained in what i said. this is common in arguments where the opposing side runs out of arguments and attempts to invent some.........

What views did I attch to your posts? The fact that I said you thought 9/11 was a conspiricy? :-)

You do believe it seems that there is a conspiricy by the Council of Europe to slander the police force in order to keep their jobs. Which is completely pulled out of the air with no evdidence whatsoever.

You have no argument you asked me to back up my arguement with evidence and I supplied you with a report by a very reputable international organiseation and you told me you don't believe reports. Would you rather I said I know loads of people that were ill-treated? What kind of evidence would you like?

I am afriad you are really just an apologist and you have little to argue and are just contorting yourself and to be quite honest looking quite childish.

copperdaz

pirelli wrote: »

If I was cia and they gave me any gruff about it they would then be arrested and deported to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation, an action now approved by the irish authorities. The cia would also have a big file of their private activities as well as their families and friends internet usage and other private data, which was provided by the Irish authorities. Probably including photographs of them standing outside shell garage protesting.

Thanks for asking how we would feel about something copperdaz before going right ahead and giving away our freedoms to the americanos.

CIA ? Americans? i think your watching too many action movies. i have no problem with them having protesters photographs its the reverse of the argument. you in a public place. you cant have it both ways. in what way are you giving away freedoms to americans? every state does these things such as monitor persons who are engaged in protests of all kinds. most are people with an interest or objection to the issue. the problem is when protesters decide to take it to another level and engage in criminal activities. the question is then asked where was the police / intelegence agancies, what did they not stop these people?
that is why i am willing , along with the majority of people to allow the police and the likes to monitor what ever they want. if you not in the wrong you have nothing to fear. if you are engaged in activity such as protesting for what ever reason im glad there is someone watching.

Besides Copperdaz didn't you say it is illegal to film a garda station, the analogy is rather pointless then, I do sympathise with a citizens right to privacy.

its an offence under the offences against the state to photograph record police stations. but for some reason not the people in them.

copperdaz

never said that the council was slandering police forces!
never said its a conspiricy
never said it so that police could keep there jobs
you introduced 9/11 thing not me
you introduced all of these in YOUR post.

again zzzz read what i said none of these issues are in anything i posted.

dothis

never said that the council was slandering police forces!

Well fogive me if I misunderstood. Are you saying that the Council of Europe's report is acurate and that they have not changed it to suit themselves?

never said its a conspiricy

That's true you didn't say the word conspiricy but, the effect of what you were saying was that there was a conspiricy

never said it so that police could keep there jobs

That wasn't what I was saying. It seems to me that you seem to think that the CPT were fabricating human rights abuses in Ireland because they needed something bad to report or else they wouldn't have a job to do.

you introduced 9/11 thing not me

I was mocking you. That's all.


Now if you would be so kind and report some evidence to support your proposition.

I'll repeat the question again because it seems you forgot to answer it. You asked me for evidence to support my assertion that the Irish Police force had major human rights abuse problems I provided you with 4 reports as evidence. You don't seem to trust the report of the CPT. So what kind of evidence would like?

dothis

copperdaz wrote: »

its an offence under the offences against the state to photograph record police stations. but for some reason not the people in them.

I am not doubting this it may well be the law but, I had a look though the Act and the Charging Manual and couldn't find it. Do you have a reference?