Gardaí to stand trial in connection with alleged assault on teenager

slurcher

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

No I don't view the general public as a client base

Who are you serving in your line of duty?

Bosco boy

slurcher wrote: »

Regarding Rossport

The GSOC had received up to October 2009 a total of 111 complaints, in regard to policing of the protests, of which 78 were deemed admissible. The Director of Public Prosecutions were sent seven files but the DPP did not accept evidence for criminal prosecution of gardaí in all seven cases.[6]

I was in Mayo and spoke to many people in the pubs there and many claimed they were assaulted - there is footage on youtube showing how the police were very heavy handed. The majority of them were residents, not protesters from outside. Were they all talking rubbish?

a pub is always a great place to get a story with a little added on! You tube videos in relation to shell to sea are well edited to suit shell to sea, the gardai don't download their footage on you tube but use it in court instead and that's why so many protestors have been dealt with by the courts!

Nodin

Lads, is there not enough shite in this thread as it is without dragging shell to poxy sea into this....

slurcher

The figures aren't as complete as they could be but you may find them interesting. Personally, I would like to see figures on repeat complainants. To my knowledge noone has ever been charged with making a false complaint. It seems there is no penalty for falsely tarnishing a Gardas reputation.


Thanks for the figures btw.

Do you not see even a slight problem if people could be charged for making complaints?

So no complaint has ever been prooved as false, although you beleive 99.9% of them are actually false - surely you're the fuzz cant you stitch one of those pesky complainants up?

I dont think a garda's reputation is tarnished when nearly all the complaints are deemed inadmissable.

The figures show that even though a huge amount of complaints were thrown out, out of 435 cases of assault that were deemed admissable and investigated only 2 resulted in conviction. This is still a shockingly low conviction rate.

slurcher

Bosco boy wrote: »

a pub is always a great place to get a story with a little added on! You tube videos in relation to shell to sea are well edited to suit shell to sea, the gardai don't download their footage on you tube but use it in court instead and that's why so many protestors have been dealt with by the courts!

My point exactly protesters dealt with by the courts, police complaints completely ignored, thanks for reaffirming my point.

The Waltzing Consumer

slurcher wrote: »

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

No I don't view the general public as a client base

Who are you serving in your line of duty?

Eh I serve people. Line of duty? Your choice of words intrigues me

slurcher

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

slurcher wrote: »

Eh I serve people. Line of duty? Your choice of words intrigues me

Line of work, duty, however you like to call it.

You serve people (the public), but you seem to have quite a low opinion of them, I may be wrong, but if you do wouldnt this affect your quality of work?

MagicSean

slurcher wrote: »

Of the number of people charged with assaulting a garda, how many of them get off?

Not many. But most of them aren't charged because the Garda accepts it as part of his duty. Unless the Garda is badly hurt there will most likely be no charge.

slurcher wrote: »

15% is a significant figure and remember that all off the Rossport complaints we deemed inadmissable despite footage of the assaults. They were not complaints about the gardai being awfully rude.

No you are mixing things up. Inadmissable means they were not deemed worthy of investigation because they didn't involve a criminal act or breach of discipline. The Rossport ones would be considered admissable as they alleged abuse of power and assault. This means they would not be included in the 33% and would have been investigated in some way. I dont think you understand what inadmissable means in the context of GSOC.

slurcher wrote: »

You argue that 99.9% of complaints are just rubbish. Yet this shows that valid complaints are not being investigated.

Did I say that? I can't find it in my post history. If I did say that I meant that 99.9% of inadmissable complaints are rubbish.

slurcher wrote: »

69% relate to discourtesy, neglect and abuse of authority
Try treating the public with the respect you beleive you deserve, you may get less complaints.

My record is clean thank you. Who do you think you are to suggest I don't treat people with respect. Have you ever seen me do otherwise?

slurcher wrote: »

I live near Summerhill, everyone knows Terrence Wheelock was murdered, one garda even said to a lad in the area 'we will do to you what we did to Wheelock'.

Murdered? So the medical evidence was doctored and all the findings were fake? I know people like to blame others when it comes to suicide but there is a point when the truth must be accepted. The reason people must be checked on regularly is because suicide attempts are a real threat. But the problem arises when you have a conflict of rights. Sure it would be great if Gardaí could monitor prisoners full time. But aside from the manpower aspect there are other considerations. Even prisoners have a right to privacy and a right to sleep.

slurcher wrote: »

Do you not see even a slight problem if people could be charged for making complaints?

Vexatious complaints? No.

slurcher wrote: »

So no complaint has ever been prooved as false, although you beleive 99.9% of them are actually false - surely you're the fuzz cant you stitch one of those pesky complainants up?

Yet again you assume the worst of me without even knowing one thing about me. And once again I don't think I said 99.9% are false. If you can quote my post I'd appreciate it.

slurcher wrote: »

I dont think a garda's reputation is tarnished when nearly all the complaints are deemed inadmissable.

If you were brought to court for assaulting someone and the other person had made it all up would you consider your reputation damaged?


You clearly have a very low opinion of all Gardaí with very little reason other than what you read in the papers.

Bosco boy

slurcher wrote: »

My point exactly protesters dealt with by the courts, police complaints completely ignored, thanks for reaffirming my point.

Oh so that was your point? thought you were on about having a few pints in rossport discussing a few blow in's on you tube geting locals into trouble and abusing the local gaurds and then shagging off back to the uk in time to collect their dole.

senordingdong

daltonm wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1026/garda.html

"The jury was discharged by Judge Desmond Hogan on the grounds that certain matters had come to light from the prosecution and ombudsman office.
The judge said that what had been disclosed was a serious matter and needed to be examined.
The case has been put back to 10 November for a date to be set for a retrial. "



Actually it looks bad for the Gardai.

Well early reports through the grapevine suggest that it was in fact bad for the prosection.
Apparently, Gaffney, on tape and everything, told Gardaí that if they got him €200k, he would drop the charges.

Now, even if everything Gaffney said was true (which we know wasn't) then he has just lost all credibility as a witness.

MagicSean

senordingdong wrote: »

Well early reports through the grapevine suggest that it was in fact bad for the prosection.
Apparently, Gaffney, on tape and everything, told Gardaí that if they got him €200k, he would drop the charges.

Now, even if everything Gaffney said was true (which we know wasn't) then he has just lost all credibility as a witness.

It would certainly introduce doubt. If he had waited til after the trial he would probably have got that and more in a civil case, no matter what the outcome of the trial. Of course this is all just rumour.

senordingdong

k_mac wrote: »

Of course this is all just rumour.

Rumours indeed.

Personally I've had this doubht since the beginning, but telling the ombudsman and jury that he had no previous convictions, only to have the defence remind him that he infact has twenty seven convictions (amongst which are some of the most serious crimes in society), made me doubht him just that little more.

Renn

480905 wrote: »

I'm surprised the mods haven't intervened here. This is a case that is before the courts and despite what anybody believes or wants to believe , defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
If the courts deem it necessary to dissolve a trial then that presents further issues to which people should be very very wary of commenting on in a public forum. Whatever issues have presented that warranted this,will, in due course, be presented in evidence and then ,and only then, will people be able to comment.

I, for one, wouldn't like to be in the defendants' shoes.

Leave well alone people.

It will all come out in the wash.

lol

Nodin

senordingdong wrote: »

Well early reports through the grapevine ............

The ever reliable grapevine. What would we do without it....

slurcher

Bosco boy wrote: »

Oh so that was your point? thought you were on about having a few pints in rossport discussing a few blow in's on you tube geting locals into trouble and abusing the local gaurds and then shagging off back to the uk in time to collect their dole.

I dont know who you are confusing me with, but I spoke to locals who told me about the history of shell in Rossport, many admitted they were in favour at first. As the danger of the pipeline emerged etc and they began to protest against many found out about the tactics of the police and were disgusted with the way they were treated for doing nothing more than defending themselves against an oil company.

I've lived here for 2 years and I have never signed on either here or in the UK. So you assume anyone who has a social conscience must have dreads, drink heavily and sign on.

senordingdong

Just a quickie Nodin, do you have a link to the notes about Murtaghs blood on the wall at Gaffneys house?
I can't find one for it.

Nodin

senordingdong wrote: »

Just a quickie Nodin, do you have a link to the notes about Murtaghs blood on the wall at Gaffneys house?
I can't find one for it.

There was blood on the wall, but nobody said it was Murtaghs.
I said it was in the house, which was an error on my part.

The officers, who were travelling in two separate squad cars, are said to have met earlier on the Sunday afternoon when they allegedly made a concerted plan to assault Mr Gaffney. About nine are believed to have been in the vicinity of his home during the incident.
The state barrister said witnesses, including other gardai on duty, will describe how Garda Delaney waved a piece of paper in Mrs Gaffney's face pretending it was a warrant as the others went upstairs unlawfully.

Mrs Gaffney lodged a complaint with Detective Sergeant Colette Wheeler, a duty officer in Kilmainham, who revealed there were no planned searches in the Basin Street area that afternoon.
The case was passed to the Garda Ombudsman and a major investigation launched.
Mr O'Connell claimed forensic tests will reveal a one-in-a-million chance that a mix of blood found on the handle of a baton did not belong to Mr Gaffney and Garda Murtagh.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/gardai-locked-mum-in-bathroom-while-beating-her-son-court-told-2386839.html

senordingdong

Ah right.

Just wanted to ask because I couldn't find it myself.

ArmaniJeanss

senordingdong wrote: »

Well early reports through the grapevine suggest that it was in fact bad for the prosection.
Apparently, Gaffney, on tape and everything, told Gardaí that if they got him €200k, he would drop the charges.

Now, even if everything Gaffney said was true (which we know wasn't) then he has just lost all credibility as a witness.

On the grounds that any of us could be selected for the jury in the next trial, this type of post is madness.

Its not the only such post on the thread, so I'm not just picking on you.

mikemac

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

On the grounds that any of us could be selected for the jury in the next trial,

I think you need to be registered to vote in Dublin to get on this jury as it's a Dublin case

I'm registered elsewhere.
We don't have crime in our county :cool:

mikemac

senordingdong wrote: »

Personally I've had this doubht since the beginning, but telling the ombudsman and jury that he had no previous convictions, only to have the defence remind him that he infact has twenty seven convictions (amongst which are some of the most serious crimes in society), made me doubht him just that little more.

You're very harsh, the poor lad didn't understand what a conviction was :

He admitted that he had a total of 27 previous convictions but denied deliberately leaving this out of his first statement to the Garda Ombudsman.
He said he told them he had been arrested a number of times but 'didn't actually know what the word conviction meant'.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1021/garda.html

So not his fault at all, he was confused :P

slurcher

k_mac wrote: »

Not many. But most of them aren't charged because the Garda accepts it as part of his duty. Unless the Garda is badly hurt there will most likely be no charge.

No you are mixing things up. Inadmissable means they were not deemed worthy of investigation because they didn't involve a criminal act or breach of discipline. The Rossport ones would be considered admissable as they alleged abuse of power and assault. This means they would not be included in the 33% and would have been investigated in some way. I dont think you understand what inadmissable means in the context of GSOC.

Did I say that? I can't find it in my post history. If I did say that I meant that 99.9% of inadmissable complaints are rubbish.

My record is clean thank you. Who do you think you are to suggest I don't treat people with respect. Have you ever seen me do otherwise?

Murdered? So the medical evidence was doctored and all the findings were fake? I know people like to blame others when it comes to suicide but there is a point when the truth must be accepted. The reason people must be checked on regularly is because suicide attempts are a real threat. But the problem arises when you have a conflict of rights. Sure it would be great if Gardaí could monitor prisoners full time. But aside from the manpower aspect there are other considerations. Even prisoners have a right to privacy and a right to sleep.

Vexatious complaints? No.

Yet again you assume the worst of me without even knowing one thing about me. And once again I don't think I said 99.9% are false. If you can quote my post I'd appreciate it.

If you were brought to court for assaulting someone and the other person had made it all up would you consider your reputation damaged?

You clearly have a very low opinion of all Gardaí with very little reason other than what you read in the papers.

My browsers wont allow me to multi-quote for some reason.

When a complaint is deemed inadmisssable who decides this? Is it the gardai or gsoc? I know that people were assaulted and there complaints were deemed inadmissable. As a garda you beleive that is open and shut - there was no assault. To the person assaulted its a different story. Didn't involve a criminal act or breach of discipline, according to the investigation doesnt mean that there was no wrongdoing.

Did I say that? I can't find it in my post history. If I did say that I meant that 99.9% of inadmissable complaints are rubbish. Ok you said something like that maybe not verbatim, I will have a look in a bit.

My record is clean thank you. Who do you think you are to suggest I don't treat people with respect. Have you ever seen me do otherwise?
Im glad yours is, would you report a collegue if you saw them do something completely out of order. Many people feel that no matter what police get up to they just close ranks and will defend each other against anything.

Murdered? So the medical evidence was doctored and all the findings were fake?
It has happened. Heard of freddy patel?
Around here, people do have contempt for the police, they have kicked in doors in flats without warrants before, they treat people as if they were scum. I beleive as many others do that he was murdered. We wont agree on that I know, noone in the community beleives he was in a cell and in 2 hours decides he is going to kill himself.

Vexatious complaints? No. If people could be charged for even making a complaint then that would be a police state, my remark about you being the fuzz etc, well I was being facetious - yet if no complaint was ever prooved to be false then what is the problem of people complaining about the service they receive from the force. In every other line of work people can have complaints made against them. who would decide if the nature of the complaint was vaxatious?

You clearly have a very low opinion of all Gardaí with very little reason other than what you read in the papers. I dont have a very low opinion of all gardai, but when a group of people - any people - get power that puts them above the law, they will abuse that power. Its as sure as night follows day.

I know lots of improvements have been made and the handling of sexual assault reportings have massively improved in recent years, the youth intervention scheme is another which is really good and I cant think of more im sure there are others. These are examples of actually working with communities and improving things for people.

Many people have a low opinion and its a shame because you are people just like the rest of us and shouldnt face any abuse in your line of work, what do you think that could be done about it to improve the public perception?

My personal dealings with the police have been very mixed. One really bad when I was 17 which I would consider an assault to an intruder in my garden trying to break in and the police being there is 5 mins. I do feel that the majority of the police will do anything they are told to do by the state no matter how immoral. Attacking workers for defending their jobs, attacking people defending thier community from large oil companies. If there was a similar issue affecting your community\family directly where would your loyalties?

mikemac

slurcher wrote: »

they treat people as if they were scum.

The bould Terence was a joyrider, so yes that would make him scum in my opinion

Garda Tadhg O’Leary, from Fitzgibbon Street Garda station, said gardaí received a phone call from a woman on that day to report a car being brought into a back yard at Sean O’Casey Avenue and being covered with a sheet.

Garda O’Leary had a check run on the black Toyota Yaris, and the owner in Donnybrook confirmed it had been stolen.

He later spotted four young men in the car.

“Terrence Wheelock, who was known to me, jumped from the passenger seat,” he said. “All four youths ran from the car into the back door of the house.”

Gardaí confirmed all four were surrounded in the square at the front of the house by officers and gave themselves up shortly after midday.

http://breaking.tcm.ie/ireland/cwidojsnaucw/

senordingdong

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

On the grounds that any of us could be selected for the jury in the next trial, this type of post is madness.

Its not the only such post on the thread, so I'm not just picking on you.

Not really.

You can't stop the public from gossiping or talking about anything that is going on in or out of the courts.

Anyway, anything a potential juror reads here is no more likely to cause sway then something they're told in the court room.

slurcher

feelingstressed wrote: »

The bould Terence was a joyrider, so yes that would make him scum in my opinion



http://breaking.tcm.ie/ireland/cwidojsnaucw/

The gardai treat the entire community as scum, noone there wants joyriders, when I was a kid over here 2 of my friends were knocked down in Marys Mansions by one they were lucklily ok - whenever there was a rob car you see pure fear of faces of women grabbing their kids inside. If you portray an entire community as scum, why be suprised when they are against you.

I dont think Terence deserved to die for joy riding - do you? If you are a garda and you believe joy rider = scum, you wouldnt give them the best reception down at the station would you? This is why I beleive he was murdered.

steddyeddy

Gerone71 wrote: »

Whoa, the Gardai have not been convicted of beating him up. For all we know the force paid the scumbag a visit and at worse gave him a verbal warning. When they left the scums mothers helped with self inflicting her sons with some wounds and wiping the blood on the walls. Then after rushing to the local spar to purchase a camera contacted their friend, the Ombudsman.

ten gaurds were needed to give a verbal warning? no we can be pretty sure that that was not the gaurds intent.

MagicSean

slurcher wrote: »

When a complaint is deemed inadmisssable who decides this? Is it the gardai or gsoc? I know that people were assaulted and there complaints were deemed inadmissable. As a garda you beleive that is open and shut - there was no assault. To the person assaulted its a different story. Didn't involve a criminal act or breach of discipline, according to the investigation doesnt mean that there was no wrongdoing.

GSOC decide. They have a set criteria for deciding what is admissable.

The complaint is admissible if:

* It is made by a person who is entitled to complain
* The alleged behaviour is considered as misbehaviour
* The complaint is made within the required timeframe
* The complaint is not false or misleading

If your complaint is inadmissible you will be notified of the reason that it is inadmissible in writing by the Garda Ombudsman

slurcher wrote: »

Ok you said something like that maybe not verbatim, I will have a look in a bit.

Well if you're gonna make accusations you should really be able to back them up.

slurcher wrote: »

It has happened. Heard of freddy patel?
Around here, people do have contempt for the police, they have kicked in doors in flats without warrants before, they treat people as if they were scum. I beleive as many others do that he was murdered. We wont agree on that I know, noone in the community beleives he was in a cell and in 2 hours decides he is going to kill himself.

I'm sure it has happened but there's no evidence to suggest it in this case. You may not believe that someone would do that but they do. I've seen a person try to hang themselves with their trousers within five minutes of going in the cell. I've also seen someone whip out a razor blade and cut their wrists just to try and infect gardaí and get them in trouble.

slurcher wrote: »

If people could be charged for even making a complaint then that would be a police state, my remark about you being the fuzz etc, well I was being facetious - yet if no complaint was ever prooved to be false then what is the problem of people complaining about the service they receive from the force. In every other line of work people can have complaints made against them. who would decide if the nature of the complaint was vaxatious?

I'm referring to complaints that are completely false and made with the sole purpose of wasting time and hopefully getting someone in trouble for nothing.

slurcher wrote: »

I dont have a very low opinion of all gardai, but when a group of people - any people - get power that puts them above the law, they will abuse that power. Its as sure as night follows day.

Yes you do. You've made a number of assumptions and accusations of me based solely on my profession.

slurcher wrote: »

Many people have a low opinion and its a shame because you are people just like the rest of us and shouldnt face any abuse in your line of work, what do you think that could be done about it to improve the public perception?

I think the show on RTE was a good idea but it should be done in rough areas on weekends. Perhaps if people see the abuse and violence directed toward Gardaí they will adjust their views.

slurcher wrote: »

My personal dealings with the police have been very mixed. One really bad when I was 17 which I would consider an assault to an intruder in my garden trying to break in and the police being there is 5 mins.

Someone was trying to break in to your house and the Gardaí assaulted him within 5 minutes?

jackiebaron

goat2 wrote: »

the gardai knew that they were not dealing with an innicent person, this thug had already assaulted members of the force, and hurt some members in the past, all he got were a few bruises, nothing serious, and i am sure brought on by himself, beating back at gardai, they had to protect themselves, i would not and could not stand in the side of people like this thug, they do deserve a good going over for once, and locked up for the sake of public safety

You have no idea what kind of injuries he sustained so stop just making sh!t up. You also don't know that he was beating back the police but if he was he was well within his rights to defend himself and his home from four intruders. These cops had no warrant for either search and seizure nor for arrest. They simply entered his home to batter him. Now you can argue until you're blue in the face that he is a scumbag and he deserved it but that doesn't change the fact the the police officers broke MULTIPLE laws in doing what they did (breaking and entering, assault and battery, false imprisonment and those are just the obvious ones...we could also dig down and find dozens more charges...willful misrepresentation, affray, trespass, etc. etc.) and that's the issue here. Not how many convictions this guys had, what kind of a character he was, etc. Whether he was a serial killer or a fcuking altar boy is not the point. So stop bleating on about it.
Guards broke the law. Got it? They abused their power. Got it? Now if you think that that's just fine and dandy and that they should be allowed to enter anyone's home and beat them up then put your money where your mouth is. Write to your TD and urge him to help change the law so that Guards can legally enter anybody's home (your's included) and beat them (you included) if they feel like it. See how much support you get for your campaign.

The Waltzing Consumer

jackiebaron wrote: »

You have no idea what kind of injuries he sustained so stop just making sh!t up. You also don't know that he was beating back the police but if he was he was well within his rights to defend himself and his home from four intruders. These cops had no warrant for either search and seizure nor for arrest. They simply entered his home to batter him. Now you can argue until you're blue in the face that he is a scumbag and he deserved it but that doesn't change the fact the the police officers broke MULTIPLE laws in doing what they did (breaking and entering, assault and battery, false imprisonment and those are just the obvious ones...we could also dig down and find dozens more charges...willful misrepresentation, affray, trespass, etc. etc.) and that's the issue here. Not how many convictions this guys had, what kind of a character he was, etc. Whether he was a serial killer or a fcuking altar boy is not the point. So stop bleating on about it.
Guards broke the law. Got it? They abused their power. Got it? Now if you think that that's just fine and dandy and that they should be allowed to enter anyone's home and beat them up then put your money where your mouth is. Write to your TD and urge him to help change the law so that Guards can legally enter anybody's home (your's included) and beat them (you included) if they feel like it. See how much support you get for your campaign.

Jeez :rolleyes: Talk about an angry post bordering on the abusive, calm down. It's only a scumbag we're talking about here

Did you hear he had 27 convctions?

Nodin

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Jeez :rolleyes: Talk about an angry post bordering on the abusive, calm down. It's only a scumbag we're talking about here

Did you hear he had 27 convctions?

Theres this book..."Subtelty in Trolling".....