Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gardaí to stand trial in connection with alleged assault on teenager

1…1920212325

Comments

  • #662
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    senordingdong wrote: »
    Why?

    Are papers infallable?

    No, but more sound than the 'dogs in the street' and at least provide a reference point.


  • #663
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, but more sound than the 'dogs in the street' .

    Haha, no they're not.

    Anyway, I said that one reason was unsubstantiated and when mentioning the other, I used the word 'allegedly'.
    Just like your precious newspaper article did.


  • #664
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If that's what happened then yes of course they should be punished.

    But this is a young man who had 20 convictions to his name including rape and assault on a Garda so I truely find it difficult to believe they arrived at his home randomly and beat him up for no reason while holding his mother against her will.

    Besides as a woman I think any man convicted of rape deserves nothing less a smacking around.



    We'll try this again.

    The convictions that someone has in the past DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MEMBERS OF THE POLICE FORCE TO ENTER HIS HOME AND BEAT HIM.

    Can you not get that into your head? Why are you bringing up his past convictions? Why does ANYONE on here think that when you commit a crime, are tried, convicted and sentenced, serve the sentence and are released that you are automatically on the list of those people who can have his door knocked down and his head kicked in by the gardai at any time of their choosing at any point in your life?

    I'll say this once more. There were no planned arrests or raids for this area on the night in question and there was no warrant issued for anyone's arrest OR for their premises to be searched. Can you not understand that?

    And they didn't randomly target his house. Where did you get that idea?

    As for what you think "as a woman" is irrelevant. The law is the law and your "thoughts" don't go towards what is legal and what is not.

    Finally as for the rape conviction, can anyone verify this? I find it difficult to believe that anyone convicted of rape would still be walking the streets at the age of 20. How much time did he serve for this rape conviction?


  • #665
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    senordingdong wrote: »
    Twenty seven offences, including, but not limited to, theft, dangerous driving, vandalism, assault and rape.
    Source for this (I've done some Google searches, but I can't find one) ?


  • #666
    Taltos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,830 ✭✭✭✭Taltos


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    The convictions that someone has in the past DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MEMBERS OF THE POLICE FORCE TO ENTER HIS HOME AND BEAT HIM.

    Tend to disagree.
    As soon as you cross that line you forfeit all rights to be treated as a human or an animal.
    Shame they don't do this a bit more often with permanent results.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Taltos wrote: »
    Tend to disagree.
    As soon as you cross that line you forfeit all rights to be treated as a human or an animal.

    In what other ways does your universe differ from this one?


  • #668
    NewHillel
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭NewHillel


    dvpower wrote: »
    In what other ways does your universe differ from this one?
    Taltos wrote: »
    Tend to disagree.
    As soon as you cross that line you forfeit all rights to be treated as a human or an animal.
    Shame they don't do this a bit more often with permanent results.

    He's that alien guy who came to give judgement on the planet. His buddies left without him. :D


  • #669
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    NewHillel wrote: »
    He's that alien guy who came to give judgement on the planet. His buddies left without him. :D

    Jesus?
    dvpower wrote:
    Source for this (I've done some Google searches, but I can't find one) ?
    Me neither...
    My source was the Sunday world, I read it in a story from a good while back about him breaching his probation.
    They gave a re-hash of the last time his name was in the paper, which was covering an awful (possibly) gang rape charge he was involved in.


  • #670
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    senordingdong wrote: »

    Me neither...
    My source was the Sunday world, I read it in a story from a good while back about him breaching his probation.
    They gave a re-hash of the last time his name was in the paper, which was covering an awful (possibly) gang rape charge he was involved in.


    It looks very much like you've read this story which has some gang members threatening rape and also happens to mention Gaffney (on a separate matter) and you managed to turn it into Gaffney having a previous connection for rape.
    Well done.:(

    http://www.sundayworld.com/columnists/?aid=4463


  • #671
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    It looks very much like you are making an assumption.
    It has nothing to do with that story.

    Well done yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    senordingdong wrote: »
    It looks very much like you are making an assumption.
    It has nothing to do with that story.

    Well done yourself.
    Can you provide some evidence for your rape conviction claim?
    Or GTFO.


  • #673
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    senordingdong wrote: »
    It looks very much like you are making an assumption.
    It has nothing to do with that story.

    Well done yourself.

    Its a reasonable assumption, as opposed to what appears to be your unfounded allegation.


  • #674
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    dvpower wrote: »
    Can you provide some evidence for your rape conviction claim?
    Or GTFO.

    No, I can't.
    Because I read a newspaper article sometime last year, and have not been compiling a collection of 'evidence' for future internet discussions.


  • #675
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    senordingdong wrote: »
    No, I can't.
    Because I read a newspaper article sometime last year, and have not been compiling a collection of 'evidence' for future internet discussions.


    It didn't strike you as odd that when they were reading out his offences in court, they didn't throw a rape conviction at him?


  • #676
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    I wasn't in the court.

    Was a complete break down of his 27 convictions presented?


  • #677
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    senordingdong wrote: »
    I wasn't in the court.

    Not being able to present a source for rumours hasn't stopped you speculating or presenting them here. Not being able to find an article to back up what you state you read hasn't prevented you stating it as a solid fact.....
    senordingdong wrote: »
    Was a complete break down of his 27 convictions presented?

    They went through the most significant.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1022/1224281722396.html


  • #678
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    senordingdong wrote: »
    No, I can't.
    Because I read a newspaper article sometime last year, and have not been compiling a collection of 'evidence' for future internet discussions.

    Then why did you write in a previous post that he had a conviction for rape? And don't tell me that you were just posting what you read in an article somewhere sometime ago. Produce the source whereby it states he was convicted of rape. Otherwise don't state that he was.
    You just threw that in to paint him in an even worse light.


  • #679
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    Nodin wrote: »
    They went through the most significant.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1022/1224281722396.html

    How do you know they are the most significant?
    jackiebaron wrote:
    Then why did you write in a previous post that he had a conviction for rape? You just threw that in to paint him in an even worse light.
    Because that is what I read.
    I can assure you I'm not painting light on anyone.


  • #680
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    senordingdong wrote: »
    No, I can't.
    Because I read a newspaper article sometime last year, and have not been compiling a collection of 'evidence' for future internet discussions.
    Let's examine what you are saying:

    The Sunday World have reported that Owen Gaffney has a previous conviction for rape. Somehow this report wasn't indexed by Google and you can't now produce it. Not only that but this fact wasn't reported in any other media in a case where his previous convictions have been reported on by lots of other media.

    You are starting to look very foolish. But its not too late to admit that you misread it, it passed through your sanity filter and you made a mistake in posting the claim. Are you going to continue to claim that its true?


  • #681
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    dvpower wrote: »
    Let's examine what you are saying:

    The Sunday World have reported that Owen Gaffney has a previous conviction for rape. Somehow this report wasn't indexed by Google and you can't now produce it. Not only that but this fact wasn't reported in any other media in a case where his previous convictions have been reported on by lots of other media.
    Does every article ever printed get psoted online too?


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭reprazant


    senordingdong wrote: »
    Does every article ever printed get psoted online too?

    So you say you read an article which claimed rape and are sticking to this even though there are multiple articles relating to his crimes, none of which mention this at all?

    Just this one article.

    Which they decided not to put up on the internet for some unknown reason.


  • #683
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    senordingdong wrote: »
    Does every article ever printed get psoted online too?

    Keep digging.


  • #684
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Owen Gaffney and his mother have now both started civil cases against the state.
    (I know this because there is a newspaper report about it)


  • #685
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    senordingdong wrote: »
    How do you know they are the most significant?.

    Its self evident in the article, as is the purpose for bringing them up. Thats what happens when you have facts at hand - you can try and analyse them.
    senordingdong wrote: »
    Because that is what I read..

    ....... or thats what you think you remember reading.


  • #686
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    senordingdong wrote: »
    How do you know they are the most significant?

    Because that is what I read.
    I can assure you I'm not painting light on anyone.

    But how COULD you have read it? Where? Where could you have read this that you felt it to be failsafe and reliable enough to print here?
    Backpedal or prevaricate all you want, pal, but don't print scurrilous rumours, use them as ammunition to make an argument and be expected to be taken seriously.


  • #687
    Johnny Utah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,157 ✭✭✭Johnny Utah


    Bosco boy wrote: »
    Applies to all live trials! havent noticed a thread on him yet johnny!

    I wasn't referring to any particular trial; it was just a hypothetical example. Besides, there have been plenty of threads here and on other forums about high profile trials, whilst those trials have been in progress before the courts. Do a search....


  • #688
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    msjones1 wrote: »
    understand but when you have poster on saying people interfer with witness or jury all i was saying was that all we have is gaffney side.

    No, all we have is whats been presented in court, via the papers.
    msjones1 wrote: »
    this whole discussion should be blocked as it is prejudice to the whole case.

    ...a view you've suddenly come to hold after whatever you posted was removed...


  • #689
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    msjones1 wrote: »
    mmmmm no a view i have coz i know what really happened. and wat you have read in the press sofar is just what gaffney has said. since when do we have trial by press

    Actually whats been in the press lately has been what the prosecution said.

    And no one said we were having trial by press, we are just discussing whats been mentioned in court. You seemed to want to have trial by anecdote, however.


  • #690
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    msjones1 wrote: »
    mmmmm no a view i have coz i know what really happened. and wat you have read in the press sofar is just what gaffney has said. since when do we have trial by press

    Since pretty much forever.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83,817 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    msjones1 wrote: »
    this whole discussion should be blocked as it is prejudice to the whole case
    The onus is really on Jurors don't to explore the case they are overseeing. It's why Jurors have always been discouraged from revealing what court cases they are involved with, or discussing the case. For particularly sensitive cases, a jury can be confined to dissuade that prejudice.

    If there is a Juror on this case that is reading this thread, all I can say is it would be unethical on their part.


Advertisement