Suppression of free speech in Galway, Ireland

donvito99

PomBear wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch9ORXw8ulw

disgraceful how our right to peaceful assembly is abused by the Gardaí and the only reason is because its radical non-PC way of thinking. Note: the Jewish man was peacefully asked to debate in a quiet matter but he was the one making the scene

Jesus Christ the cameraman doesnt let anyone have their say does he?!

source

donvito99 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the cameraman doesnt let anyone have their say does he?!

nope he didn't even let his own "independent witnesses" say what happened without leading them through what they were saying.

imokyrok

AlekSmart wrote: »

Phew.....!

I`m still not convinced that we are getting the full version of what brought on the exchange between the oul Jew and the Galwayman.

I`m not seeing enough here to support an accusation of aggressive attack against the Jew,what I AM seeing is him already being in full flight when his first Video`d words are replayed....

Interesting too is the repeated interusage of the terms Jewish and Zionist...but then again we have a long tradition of Catholic/Republican and Protestant/Unionist to get over so perhaps it`s a mind block ?

The Gard is I feel on good firm ground,as he ensured that Tommy got all the rope he needed.....short of writin all of the cautions down in block capitals for Tom to read he played a blinder......I reckon any Judge watchin this stuff will be fairly satisfied if not impressed with the calibre of whats coming out of Templemore these days

My own take is that I read the Papers,watch the News reports and generally try to inform myself on World Events as best I can.

I consider myself lucky to live in a society where I have this benefit BUT I will then go away and make my own mind up as to what,if any,actions I take in response to what I learn.

Over the years I have had enough dealings with "Committed Activists" to last me several lifetimes and as a rule I now try to avoid contact of any sort with such folk as they generally appear to assume that the mass of non-committed folk are of a lesser intellect or sumtin....:rolleyes:

While I think the protestor could have been calmer in handling this I wouldn't be so quick to accuse him of editing the tape to suit himself. Especially on the point of the tape starting with the aggression from the old foreign guy. The protestor probably only started his camera when it became clear that that man wasn't going to stop shouting at him. That makes perfect sense.

I think the Garda should have not have taken for granted that the old Jewish man was telling the truth of the situation. The protestor had the right to be there and if the Garda wanted to ask him to tone it down - fine but it was not an arresting matter. There was no physical violence and no drink involved. It was simply one persons word against anothers and indeed it would seem from that video that the evidence of an American bystander that the aggression stemmed from the Jewish man was disregarded by the Garda.

It is normal for people with emotional ties in one side of a conflict to be angry at those who appear to support the other side. A garda needs to rise above it. I'd hate to see our gardai end up like some countries where you risk arrest, physical abuse and even your life if you dare to speak back to police officer.

nesf

imokyrok wrote: »

While I think the protestor could have been calmer in handling this I wouldn't be so quick to accuse him of editing the tape to suit himself. Especially on the point of the tape starting with the aggression from the old foreign guy. The protestor probably only started his camera when it became clear that that man wasn't going to stop shouting at him. That makes perfect sense.

I think the Garda should have not have taken for granted that the old Jewish man was telling the truth of the situation. The protestor had the right to be there and if the Garda wanted to ask him to tone it down - fine but it was not an arresting matter. There was no physical violence and no drink involved. It was simply one persons word against anothers and indeed it would seem from that video that the evidence of an American bystander that the aggression stemmed from the Jewish man was disregarded by the Garda.

It is normal for people with emotional ties in one side of a conflict to be angry at those who appear to support the other side. A garda needs to rise above it. I'd hate to see our gardai end up like some countries where you risk arrest, physical abuse and even your life if you dare to speak back to police officer.

Eh the guy was videotaping the Garda taking statements from people. That's seriously not ok. He was warned and then continued to do it, it's really not surprising that he was arrested.

yupsham

Miya Powerful Searchlight wrote: »

I'll be in Galway next month and I'd find these cretin's supporting Palestinians offensive to me, as I would someone supporting Israeli actions against UNIFIL troops.

So you find people supporting human rights offensive... IDF... Figures!!

source

imokyrok wrote: »

While I think the protestor could have been calmer in handling this I wouldn't be so quick to accuse him of editing the tape to suit himself. Especially on the point of the tape starting with the aggression from the old foreign guy. The protestor probably only started his camera when it became clear that that man wasn't going to stop shouting at him. That makes perfect sense.

I think the Garda should have not have taken for granted that the old Jewish man was telling the truth of the situation. The protestor had the right to be there and if the Garda wanted to ask him to tone it down - fine but it was not an arresting matter. There was no physical violence and no drink involved. It was simply one persons word against anothers and indeed it would seem from that video that the evidence of an American bystander that the aggression stemmed from the Jewish man was disregarded by the Garda.

It is normal for people with emotional ties in one side of a conflict to be angry at those who appear to support the other side. A garda needs to rise above it. I'd hate to see our gardai end up like some countries where you risk arrest, physical abuse and even your life if you dare to speak back to police officer.

Common procedure in this situation to avoid arrests, would be to to get both parties to leave the area to avoid any further conflict arising, the old man left shortly after talking with the Garda, no doubt having been asked to by the Garda. He then asked the other participant in incident to leave the area, by issuing a direction under section 8, Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. He refused,and he continually refused to comply with directions of the Garda, and was subsequently arrested.

prinz

imokyrok wrote: »

While I think the protestor could have been calmer in handling this I wouldn't be so quick to accuse him of editing the tape to suit himself. ...

We didn't get to see what began the whole thing... so nicely edited. It gives one side only. No doubt it was going to be put up on a website somewhere as "Israeli aggression against free speech" or some such. The clip there was frequently edited. Why not show all of the evidence?

imokyrok wrote: »

...indeed it would seem from that video that the evidence of an American bystander that the aggression stemmed from the Jewish man was disregarded by the Garda

It wasn't disregarded. The American man himself pointed out that Tommy was being self defeating. He made his bed by starting a scene with the garda and refusing to obey lawful instructions issued to him. He wasn't arrested over the original incident.

imokyrok wrote: »

...
It is normal for people with emotional ties in one side of a conflict to be angry at those who appear to support the other side. A garda needs to rise above it. I'd hate to see our gardai end up like some countries where you risk arrest, physical abuse and even your life if you dare to speak back to police officer.

A garda's job is not to referee discussions about Israel/Palestine or anything else for that matter. And his job is not the be talked back to, contradicted, goaded and have his instructions ignored..
As Tommy himself pointed out on the video it's not the first time trouble has resulted from his stand (despite all the opinions to the contrary here) so leads me to believe he is well used to doing what he did.

Jaysis. Is this a record for a thread about nothing?

He refused to obey a direction of the Gardai. He correctly got arrested. Whether he was arguing to save the whale or to repent to Jesus or to save Palestinians, it doesn't really matter. The only question is whether the Garda had reasonable grounds for believing that public peace required the direction, and certainly there is nothing to suggest that forming that opinion was off the wall.

Nodin

Miya Powerful Searchlight wrote: »

I'll be in Galway next month and I'd find these cretin's supporting Palestinians offensive to me, as I would someone supporting Israeli actions against UNIFIL troops.



.

...because theres such a similarity, obviously.

_ZeeK_

Deleted User wrote: »

Jaysis. Is this a record for a thread about nothing?

He refused to obey a direction of the Gardai. He correctly got arrested. Whether he was arguing to save the whale or to repent to Jesus or to save Palestinians, it doesn't really matter. The only question is whether the Garda had reasonable grounds for believing that public peace required the direction, and certainly there is nothing to suggest that forming that opinion was off the wall.

the populist left wing hippys refuse to believe this. they think he was arrested just simply for being there on the street with some banners.

trying to convince them otherwise is like trying to draw blood from a stone.

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

Jaysis. Is this a record for a thread about nothing

I really wish it was, but no, unfortunately.

Salvelinus

Nodin wrote: »

...because theres such a similarity, obviously.

dead civilians, imaginary friends

FlutterinBantam

Unfortunately we always get deluded individuals espousing a "cause" that in fairness they usually believe in, but who are nowhere near that actual scenario. Tommy is a prime example.

These people trumpet these causes, in obvious sincerity, but forget that there is another side to their stance.

We have many sincere, but alas, deluded people, who espouse causes in far away countries in the mistaken belief that the majority of people living in this state actually give a shit.

What causes friction is when these people force their opinions on others who won't just lie down and accept them, like the jewish gentleman, but confront them with facts and rebut their rhetoric to where it can usually belong.... in the brown bin.

We Irish seem to love to love to side on the "underdog" but we forget that the so called underdog can be a vicious hound with little or no regard for others safety.

Maybe some of us should reflect on that:cool:

Hillel

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Unfortunately we always get deluded individuals espousing a "cause" that in fairness they usually believe in, but who are nowhere near that actual scenario. Tommy is a prime example.

These people trumpet these causes, in obvious sincerity, but forget that there is another side to their stance.

We have many sincere, but alas, deluded people, who espouse causes in far away countries in the mistaken belief that the majority of people living in this state actually give a shit.

What causes friction is when these people force their opinions on others who won't just lie down and accept them, like the jewish gentleman, but confront them with facts and rebut their rhetoric to where it can usually belong.... in the brown bin.

We Irish seem to love to love to side on the "underdog" but we forget that the so called underdog can be a vicious hound with little or no regard for others safety.

Maybe some of us should reflect on that:cool:

Indeed, and at length.

FTA69

An interesting (and fairly humorous) confrontation between a protestor and a member of the Special Branch over the issue of cameras and filming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmhZEwymTjM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eirishrepublican%2Enet%2Fforum%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D37914&feature=player_embedded#t=182

AlekSmart

The protestor probably only started his camera when it became clear that that man wasn't going to stop shouting at him. That makes perfect sense.

I`m afraid Imokyrok it does`nt make sense to me at all as the video footage fails to cover the lead up to the crescendo and I`m not convinced by the "probably" arguement.

A garda needs to rise above it.

And rise above it this young lad did...on the wings of an eagle as far as I`m concerned

jank

prinz wrote: »

He wasn't arrested because of his stall/protest.

prinz wrote: »

The garda repeatedly told him to calm down, and back off, to desist from filming his conversations with third parties, and gave him instructions to move his stall in an effort to diffuse the situation and prevent a breach of the peace.

Eh Contradict much?

prinz wrote: »

O, and here you go http://www.cipc.govt.nz/cipc.nsf/wpg_URL/Agency-Commission-of-Inquiry-into-Police-Conduct-Report-of-the-Commission-of-Inquiry-into-Police-Conduct?OpenDocument and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Nicholas , http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0003/S00034.htm sunshine and roses.

Oh ya, way to go. Did you google New Zealand Police brutality. See any keyboard warrior can do that.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/66257
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#Allegations_involving_abuse_of_powers

But does that add anything to the topic? No it doesn't, it only looks like you want to pick a fight over something very trivial I said.

I am just saying (and I am sure many other people who have lived in NZ or OZ can back me up) that the police here seem much more laid back and community friendly and based rather than the unapproachable dont give 2 s$hits "men of the law" you can get in Ireland. Of course there are exceptions but it is just something I have noticed while living here.

Tact was something that young garda did not show I am afraid. If that incident happened on this side of the world it would be delt with in a much different way.

sdanseo

jank wrote: »

Eh Contradict much?

Absolutely not, you got him out of context. The stall itself or the man's protest was not the problem, it was where he was and his behavior that was the problem. If the man had to be moved, so did the stall, obviously (if he even had one).

jank

sdonn wrote: »

Absolutely not, you got him out of context. The stall itself or the man's protest was not the problem, it was where he was and his behavior that was the problem. If the man had to be moved, so did the stall, obviously (if he even had one).

What was wrong with where he was? I agree that his behavour didn't exactly make him smell of roses but did his behaviour warrant an arrest?

By the way does anyone know if he will be in court?

nesf

jank wrote: »

What was wrong with where he was? I agree that his behavour didn't exactly make him smell of roses but did his behaviour warrant an arrest?

Yes, in spades. It's not like the lad was thrown in prison for a few weeks ffs.

If I started harassing a 70 year old man on the street while videotaping it, do you not think that a Garda was correct for asking me to stop and to arrest me if I refused to comply? I mean seriously, do you believe that "free speech" means a guy can do something like this on the street without fear of sanction?

ballsymchugh

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Unfortunately we always get deluded individuals espousing a "cause" that in fairness they usually believe in, but who are nowhere near that actual scenario. Tommy is a prime example.

usually when something like this ends up on liveline (of all places) there's a Jewish doctor from Dublin and a Jewish lady from Cork who ring in protesting against any pro-Palestine movement.
which begs the question, can you be anti-Israeli with out being anti semetic?? i'd like to think you can, but unfortunately the establishment don't agree.
as for the guard, he really should've gotten a few more witness statements. he handled it arseways.

_ZeeK_

ballsymchugh wrote: »

as for the guard, he really should've gotten a few more witness statements.

he was bloody trying to but yer manno kept interfering with the witnesses privacy by trying to videotape their conversations! he did not handle it arseways. the protestor dug a big hole for himself.

why can't you sympathizers understand this!?

nesf

_ZeeK_ wrote: »

why don't you guys get this!

Because they don't want to. Bluntly.

jank

nesf wrote: »

Yes, in spades. It's not like the lad was thrown in prison for a few weeks ffs.

If I started harassing a 70 year old man on the street while videotaping it, do you not think that a Garda was correct for asking me to stop and to arrest me if I refused to comply? I mean seriously, do you believe that "free speech" means a guy can do something like this on the street without fear of sanction?

Ah see thats the problem, he didnt start harrasing any 70 year old man some guy started shouting at him, who then got a garda and made what appears false statements against the protestor, this point backed up by the yank guy. The above point is therefore mute not to mind false.

Is it not against the law to make false statements to a garda? Would you support the arrest of the jewish guy shouting his head off so if you think that tommy (is that his name?) deserved to get arrested.

All in all a complete waste of Garda time and taxpayers money.

nesf

jank wrote: »

Ah see thats the problem, he didnt start harrasing any 70 year old man some guy started shouting at him, who then got a garda and made what appears false statements against the protestor, this point backed up by the yank guy. The above point is therefore mute not to mind false.

How do you know any of that? Seriously, the guy was videotaping people giving witness to a Garda, that's all kinds of wrong. His behaviour is not that of an innocent bystander.

jank

nesf wrote: »

How do you know any of that? Seriously, the guy was videotaping people giving witness to a Garda, that's all kinds of wrong. His behaviour is not that of an innocent bystander.

Listen to what the Yank says. The jewish guy started giving the protester guff. etc etc. The first time the garda came to view in the clip was when he was talking the the wife of the jewish guy who was giving a statement.

Therefore who started it wasn't him.

I never said he was a innocent bystander but arrest was overkill. Do you think the jewish guy should be arrested for making what appears to be false statements?

nesf

jank wrote: »

Listen to what the Yank says. The jewish guy started giving the protester guff. etc etc. The first time the garda came to view in the clip was when he was talking the the wife of the jewish guy who was giving a statement.

Therefore who started it wasn't him.

I never said he was a innocent bystander but arrest was overkill. Do you think the jewish guy should be arrested for making what appears to be false statements?

Eh you believe this guy's hand picked "witnesses"? Seriously, that's unbelievably naive.

jank

nesf wrote: »

Eh you believe this guy's hand picked "witnesses"? Seriously, that's unbelievably naive.

No, I believe the Yank who came forward to express his opinion on what he saw. It was clear he wasnt "hand picked" as he was just in the crowd and wanted to talk to the garda.

nesf

jank wrote: »

No, I believe the Yank who came forward to express his opinion on what he saw. It was clear he wasnt "hand picked" as he was just in the crowd and wanted to talk to the garda.

How do you know he isn't related to the protest or is even neutral to begin with? It's very very easy to make it look like a neutral bystander has decided to volunteer information to a Garda. It isn't that the guy is definitely not to be trusted, it's that it's far too easy to fake something like this for it to be taken at face value. It would also be very easy to edit out any other witness contradicting the American guy's claim.

okioffice84

There seems to be confusion amongst posters as to what "a breach of the peace" actually means in legal terms. A breach of the peace may occur whenever harm is done or is likely to be done to a person, or property Or if a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.
From watching that video, the man was not in breach of the peace and not guilty of a public order offence.
The young Garda made a mistake and the man was right to stand his ground, but not perhaps in the way he did. He probably should have allowed the American tourist and Garda time to talk. Still though, a lot of the time a Garda won't back down in a situation like this because the think they'll like a fool.
This will go nowhere in court, it's just a shame a lawful protest was unlawfully broken up because a young Garda wasn't properly aware of the mans rights and the law in general.

jank

nesf wrote: »

How do you know he isn't related to the protest or is even neutral to begin with? It's very very easy to make it look like a neutral bystander has decided to volunteer information to a Garda. It isn't that the guy is definitely not to be trusted, it's that it's far too easy to fake something like this for it to be taken at face value. It would also be very easy to edit out any other witness contradicting the American guy's claim.

Well that of course that might be a possibility but in this case I don't think its the case. The Yank tells your man to go away as his actions are "self defeating" when he is trying to talk to the Garda. Not really something a plant would say! Only someone with a really paranoid disposition would think that this guy was "hand-picked". If he was handpicked why wasn't he at the end of the video? Probably because as a tourist he had better things to do than wait around.

With this in mind and what the Yank had to say, I think it is fair to say that this guy didn't start the ruckus. There is no evidence to the contrary.

But to go further on your point maybe the Jewish guy is also a plant and the whole this was orchestrated? I agree that the editing is a bit iffy and is slightly slanted but I dont think there is a huge conspiracy here.

jank

okioffice84 wrote: »

There seems to be confusion amongst posters as to what "a breach of the peace" actually means in legal terms. A breach of the peace may occur whenever harm is done or is likely to be done to a person, or property Or if a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.
From watching that video, the man was not in breach of the peace and not guilty of a public order offence..

I think the Gardai use that sometimes as a carte blanche "do what I say or else" even if there are no real ground for it.

okioffice84 wrote: »

This will go nowhere in court

I agree and hence why I asked what the story was here a few posts above. Was the guy charged at all. Does anyone know?

If it turns out that this doesnt see the light of day in a court room then as a tax payer one has the right to ask is this the best use of a Gardas time? If the charges dont stick or are dropped then the initial arrest must then be questionable. Thats my biggest gripe here, waste.

RedPlanet

nesf wrote: »

Eh you believe this guy's hand picked "witnesses"? Seriously, that's unbelievably naive.

That has got to be the most ridiculous post of this thread. :rolleyes:

ballsymchugh

_ZeeK_ wrote: »

he was bloody trying to but yer manno kept interfering with the witnesses privacy by trying to videotape their conversations! he did not handle it arseways. the protestor dug a big hole for himself.

why can't you sympathizers understand this!?

he was completely one sided in his initial approach, he made no attempt to listen to the protesters side of the story, and could've figured a lot out by checking the videotape. he only spoke to other witnesses when they came forward too. there was at least 30 people he could've asked but didn't, simply because he rushed it.
yeah the guy didn't help his case by keeping the camera on, but if the guard knew he was right, what did he have to fear by being recorded (apart from the little chat with the witness). it's their own argument for having cctv everywhere.

AlekSmart

as for the guard, he really should've gotten a few more witness statements. he handled it arseways.

what did he have to fear by being recorded (apart from the little chat with the witness). it's their own argument for having cctv everywhere.

Attempting to garner any untainted witness statements with Tommy intent on recording every word for posterity was always going to be a fraught task.....all the more for Tom`s inability to follow a clearly given Garda Instruction,which should it come to court, may be the rock upon which the lad will flounder.

I don`t believe the Garda displayed any fear of being recorded,but he did request some privacy to interview the witness.....Tom`s reluctance to allow that gained him the warnings.....:)

Interesting also to note the relative absence of native Galweigan support in the Video clip,or perhaps the natives thought it was yet another stunt and wisely avoided the set...?

Still no sign of a scene setting piece to explain the Jew`s introduction to Tommys Table ....

I really DO hope this comes before some Judge for a decision,however it`ll all be down to the DPP I suppose whose Files must stretch to Palestine at this stage....

prinz

jank wrote: »

Eh Contradict much?.

Er that's not a contradiction... ... People were claiming he was arrested because of his opinions on Palestine....he wasn't. People were saying he was arrested because he set up a stall. He wasn't. He was arrested because he refused to comply with a lawful instruction.

jank wrote: »

Oh ya, way to go. Did you google New Zealand Police brutality. See any keyboard warrior can do that.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/66257
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#Allegations_involving_abuse_of_powers

But does that add anything to the topic? No it doesn't, it only looks like you want to pick a fight over something very trivial I said.
I am just saying (and I am sure many other people who have lived in NZ or OZ can back me up) that the police here seem much more laid back and community friendly and based rather than the unapproachable dont give 2 s$hits "men of the law" you can get in Ireland. Of course there are exceptions but it is just something I have noticed while living here..

er... no it was pointing out the hypocrisy in comparing apples and oranges.. does your saying "well it wouldn't happen in NZ add anything to the topic?

jank wrote: »

Tact was something that young garda did not show I am afraid. If that incident happened on this side of the world it would be delt with in a much different way.

He tried to let it blow over and instructed the parties involved to leave the area. One complied. One didn't. Again you're not adding anything, one could just as legitmately say if this incident happened in Zimbabwe it would be dealt with in a much different way. Do you think it would have been dealt with in mainland Europe any differently....or in the US?

prinz

ballsymchugh wrote: »

there was at least 30 people he could've asked but didn't, simply because he rushed it...

9+ minutes of already heavily edited tape and you think he rushed it

ballsymchugh wrote: »

yeah the guy didn't help his case by keeping the camera on, but if the guard knew he was right, what did he have to fear by being recorded (apart from the little chat with the witness). it's their own argument for having cctv everywhere.

You may notice he had nothing to fear. He only asked that Tommy move away while he was talking to people, people who have a right to say their piece without him recording it for the world to see on youtube. CCTV is completely different btw.

prinz

jank wrote: »

If the charges dont stick or are dropped then the initial arrest must then be questionable. Thats my biggest gripe here, waste.

:pac: Hilarious, really... Perhaps you should really look into law, procedures etc., charges can be dropped for an massive number of reasons, 99% of which have no bearing whatsoever on the initial arrest.

jank

prinz wrote: »

Er that's not a contradiction... ... People were claiming he was arrested because of his opinions on Palestine....he wasn't. People were saying he was arrested because he set up a stall. He wasn't. He was arrested because he refused to comply with a lawful instruction.

Based on false statements given to the Garda.

prinz wrote: »

er... no it was pointing out the hypocrisy in comparing apples and oranges.. does your saying "well it wouldn't happen in NZ add anything to the topic?

It says a lot about the state of the Irish Police force that sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. Are you a member? Obviously you will want to protect your patch if you are but the Gardai don't really have a rep for being workman like or approachable.

prinz wrote: »

He tried to let it blow over and instructed the parties involved to leave the area. One complied. One didn't. Again you're not adding anything, one could just as legitmately say if this incident happened in Zimbabwe it would be dealt with in a much different way. Do you think it would have been dealt with in mainland Europe any differently....or in the US?

In mainland Europe and the US this would never happen because of the right to liberty is huge thing that Europeans hold dear (Spend some time in France to or Germany and you will know what I am on about!) and the right to speech is written into the Constitution in the US. If this man was arrested in the states he would have a nice bit of money from a law suit after having his rights denied. Although he may have been arrested for the breach of the peace or "insert random charge here" it would never stick and he would sue and more than likely win.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/17/3243

What we saw there is the usual botched Irish solution. I just think it was handled badly (as do others). That is my opinion and I am entitled to have it and you are not going to change my mind.

jank

prinz wrote: »

:pac: Hilarious, really... Perhaps you should really look into law, procedures etc., charges can be dropped for an massive number of reasons, 99% of which have no bearing whatsoever on the initial arrest.

Can charges be droped because there is no basis for the charge in the first place?

And if 99% of the time this happens due to "no bearing" to the initial arrest than the Justice system in this country is ****ed.

source

okioffice84 wrote: »

There seems to be confusion amongst posters as to what "a breach of the peace" actually means in legal terms. A breach of the peace may occur whenever harm is done or is likely to be done to a person, or property Or if a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.
From watching that video, the man was not in breach of the peace and not guilty of a public order offence.
The young Garda made a mistake and the man was right to stand his ground, but not perhaps in the way he did. He probably should have allowed the American tourist and Garda time to talk. Still though, a lot of the time a Garda won't back down in a situation like this because the think they'll like a fool.
This will go nowhere in court, it's just a shame a lawful protest was unlawfully broken up because a young Garda wasn't properly aware of the mans rights and the law in general.

Once again the Garda worked perfectly withing the law, and his rights, this was not a wrongful arrest, and a definition of breach of the peace does not show that it is,Firstly: if you read the whole thread you would see that he was arrested for FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF A MEMBER OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA. also if you had read my previous posts, you would know that under the public order act Garda can act if he "believes that a breach of the peace may be occasioned" This means that the Garda only has to suspect that a breach of the peace might happen for the legislation to allow him to make an arrest.

Secondly: Breach of the peace is common law, and statutory law takes precedence over common law, even if a part of common law is mentioned in the legislation. Therefore he was not working with a common law power of arrest, he was using Section 24, of the Public Order Act for an offence under Section 8, of the Public Order Act. ie Failing to comply with a direction of a member of An Garda Siochana.

Thirdly: He was not arrested for a breach of the peace, he was arrested for failing to comply with the directions of a member of an Garda Siochana.

jank

Oh by the way I got arrested and charged with an "assault" on a Garda, resisting arrest and riding in a stolen car about 8 years ago"

Still waiting for the summons! :pac::rolleyes:

I am well aware of the codology that goes on in the Irish Police force.

source

jank wrote: »

That is my opinion and I am entitled to have it and you are not going to change my mind.

Jank i respect that you have an opinion on this and i respect that you are sticking to your guns, but your opinion is based on a heavily edited video, and not on a working knowledge of the law. And it would appear from the post directly before this that you also have a heavy bias against the Gardai.

prinz

jank wrote: »

Based on false statements given to the Garda..

What false statements?

jank wrote: »

It says a lot about the state of the Irish Police force that sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. Are you a member? Obviously you will want to protect your patch if you are but the Gardai don't really have a rep for being workman like or approachable...

No I am not a member. Also I have never had any problems in any dealings with the gardaí and I have never met someone who has.

jank wrote: »

In mainland Europe and the US this would never happen because of the right to liberty is huge thing that Europeans hold dear (Spend some time in France to or Germany and you will know what I am on about!) and the right to speech is written into the Constitution in the US. If this man was arrested in the states he would have a nice bit of money from a law suit after having his rights denied. Although he may have been arrested for the breach of the peace or "insert random charge here" it would never stick and he would sue and more than likely win.

How long will it take you to realise that he wasn't arrested over free speach? And as for the other thing.. I have lived in both France and Germany..(name may have given that one away. it's GERMAN)... and Belgium as it happens, and trust me no police officer over there is going to do nothing when a lawful instruction is ignored. I have seen firsthand what they are capable of. This isn't about free speech, or a right to liberty.

prinz

jank wrote: »

And if 99% of the time this happens due to "no bearing" to the initial arrest than the Justice system in this country is ****ed.

I think you'll find the vast majority of AGS agreeing with you on that one.

jank

foinse wrote: »

Jank i respect that you have an opinion on this and i respect that you are sticking to your guns, but your opinion is based on a heavily edited video, and not on a working knowledge of the law. And it would appear from the post directly before this that you also have a heavy bias against the Gardai.

Oh I have no bias to the Gardai, I have used them before and some can be very helpful, some however well lets not get into that.
Regarding the video I know it is heavily edited but one just has to listen to the american in the middle of the video to see a pretty clear picture on what happens here. Its a storm in a tea cup at the end of the day.

I may not be a Law expert but one doesn't need to be a senior consul to see that this incident could have been handled better. Christ I am not screaming bloody murder here just the Garda showed his inexperience in this situation.

sdanseo

jank wrote: »

What was wrong with where he was? I agree that his behavour didn't exactly make him smell of roses but did his behaviour warrant an arrest?

By the way does anyone know if he will be in court?

nesf wrote: »

Yes, in spades. It's not like the lad was thrown in prison for a few weeks ffs.

If I started harassing a 70 year old man on the street while videotaping it, do you not think that a Garda was correct for asking me to stop and to arrest me if I refused to comply? I mean seriously, do you believe that "free speech" means a guy can do something like this on the street without fear of sanction?

What he said.

jank

prinz wrote: »

What false statements?

The false statement that the protestor initiated the ruckess by going off on the jewish guy. The american witness says other wise which is the basis I am going on. If he wasn't there my opinion would be different.

Generally curious but can one be arrested for making false statements?

prinz wrote: »

No I am not a member. Also I have never had any problems in any dealings with the gardaí and I have never met someone who has.

I hope it stays that way for you.

prinz wrote: »

How long will it take you to realise that he wasn't arrested over free speach? And as for the other thing.. I have lived in both France and Germany..(name may have given that one away. it's GERMAN)... and Belgium as it happens, and trust me no police officer over there is going to do nothing when a lawful instruction is ignored. I have seen firsthand what they are capable of. This isn't about free speech, or a right to liberty.

Well first off refer to the link I gave you. That couple with the t shirts were arrested for "trespassing" but won the case (or should I say it was settled out of court) as the police didnt have a leg to stand on as it was clear they they were restricting their right to free speech by arresting them on a trumped up charge. I presume something else could happen here no matter what charges he was arrested on.

Second I take it you have never been to a French street protest then. They take their rights very seriously over there. Something we should copy to be honest.

jank

prinz wrote: »

I think you'll find the vast majority of AGS agreeing with you on that one.

Clearly, and in this case the charges will more than likely be 99% dropped and never see the court room.

prinz

jank wrote: »

I may not be a Law expert but one doesn't need to be a senior consul to see that this incident could have been handled better. Christ I am not screaming bloody murder here just the Garda showed his inexperience in this situation.

One doesn't have to be a senior counsel to see that legally Tommy doesn't have a leg to stand on. Young garda operated within the law and was perfectly in the right. He showed himself extremely capable, relaxed, he didn't get flustered or bothered, he spoke calmly and clearly, he repeated his direction numerous times and gave Tommy ample opportunity to resolve it to the satisfaction of all. Unfortunately Tommy refused to do so and walked into arrest IMO because that was what he wanted. it suited his own ends. If anything the garda showed a lot of experience in keeping control of the situation and dealing with it appropriately when no other course of action was available to him. Job well done.