Gardai convicted for assult on photographer

Burnt

I don't understand it that the photographer was physically assulted; more that his images were deleted.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/two-gardai-convicted-of-assault-outside-pub-1965153.html

Irish Independent.ie wrote:

TWO gardai have been convicted of assault following an investigation by the Ombudsman Commission, writes Tom Brady.

The case arose from inquiries by the ombudsman into a complaint by a member of the public about the seizure of his digital camera as he made a video of an incident outside a pub on the northside of Dublin.

Dublin District Court yesterday heard the incident took place as gardai were responding to a call about public order at the Cat & Cage pub in Drumcondra on June 28, 2008.

The court heard evidence that the complainant had been using the camera on the street when a garda challenged him.

As a result of refusing to hand over the camera, he was taken to a garda van where the camera was taken from him and the footage was deleted.

The man lodged a complaint with the ombudsman and following an investigation by a garda superintendent, a file was referred to the DPP.

In court yesterday, Gda Gavin Keegan, of Mountjoy station, was found guilty of assault, contrary to the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, and fined €650. He was told to pay €500 compensation.

He was also convicted of causing criminal damage to the camera and fined €200.

Gda Damien Kildea, of Store Street station, was convicted of assault, fined €500 and told to pay €500 compensation.

It is understood the two gardai are lodging appeals against the convictions.

Irish Independent

Covey

Thats interesting and at least we some case law now !

spinandscribble

my camera was nearly seized or so it seemed as well outside the american embassy by a traffic gardai he was a right fool, demanding to see the photos and over and over again demanding to know why i took them an that it was a offense and he could take it (well i was getting my visa fixed before i went back to the states and some americans i knew wanted to see it)
i basically just showed him each pic and said "DELETE" and his face went a lovely shade when i showed him pictures i took of him "oh, and look mr gradai theres a nice one of you oooh and another one", right then the taxi pulled up and i jumped inside lol.

now it was just a little compact i was using but i was surprised by his reaction.

DaireQuinlan

spinandscribble wrote: »

i basically just showed him each pic and said "DELETE" and his face went a lovely shade when i showed him pictures i took of him "oh, and look mr gradai theres a nice one of you oooh and another one", right then the taxi pulled up and i jumped inside lol.

In all honesty, though immensely satisfying, this is probably the worst approach to take. Ideally, I'd politely stand my ground, politely point out my rights, and if they still persisted, make a complaint to the garda ombudsman as above. Thats ideally of course. In -reality- i'd probably end up getting annoyed and being rude and sarcastic and escalating the situation into some crazy confrontation

positivenote

can someone please clarify your rights.. in laymans terms:)

spinandscribble

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

In all honesty, though immensely satisfying, this is probably the worst approach to take. Ideally, I'd politely stand my ground, politely point out my rights, and if they still persisted, make a complaint to the garda ombudsman as above. Thats ideally of course. In -reality- i'd probably end up getting annoyed and being rude and sarcastic and escalating the situation into some crazy confrontation

i tried the polite approach initially and answering him correctly but when someone is not listening to you and asking the same question over and over again it can be hard not to treat it as a bit of fun. if i wasn't waiting for a taxi i probably would have just left. he honestly acted like he was dealing with a spy or something.

Paulw

positivenote wrote: »

can someone please clarify your rights.. in laymans terms:)

Your rights - if you haven't broken the law, then they can't delete your photos nor ask you to.

If you have broken the law, then they need to keep your photos as evidence.

Once you take a photo in public of a public viewable item/person then no one has the right to demand you delete it.

Trojan911

Good to see. I note there was a conviction for criminal damage also, no doubt for deleting the images.

It's a pity in one sense that two members of AGS now have convictions because of their apparent inapropriate behaviour.

Hopefully it will send out a message to police that it is not an offence to film/photograph in a public place and they can't bully people.

I also note appeals are to be lodged.

soccerc

Trojan911 wrote: »

It's a pity in one sense that two members of AGS now have convictions because of their apparent inapropriate behaviour.

Why is it a pity?

They acted outside their powers and rightly have been convicted.

If it was the other way around, you as a member or former member of a Police force would be possibly lauding the conviction of the thugs.

It's not one law for the civilans and one law for the guardians of the peace.

Masada

Great to see.
I find theres usually 2 reactions you get with cops when a camera comes out, they either follow the book like a religion for fear of being caught out , or go on the offencive with threats of confiscation, arrest, a beating etc etc. Good coppers are in the minority these days.

Captain Flaps

Brilliant to see that photographer's rights are being respected. Reminds me a bit of this video:

Covey

Covey wrote: »

Thats interesting and at least we some case law now !

Not quite - district court is not a court of record.

Covey

Deleted User wrote: »

Not quite - district court is not a court of record.

Well lets hope they appeal then !

Trojan911

soccerc wrote: »

Why is it a pity?

They acted outside their powers and rightly have been convicted.

If it was the other way around, you as a member or former member of a Police force would be possibly lauding the conviction of the thugs.

It's not one law for the civilans and one law for the guardians of the peace.

Your post is spot on except for the second last sentence, and if you see in my post I agreed with the conviction as well, people just cannot be bullied or pushed around for doing nothing outside the law. As a former member (Met Pol) I knew my powers and didn't abuse them. I don't gloat either way. Justice has been served, that's good enough for me.

Yes, they acted well outside their powers and a court has recognised this and has rightly convicted them of the alleged charges.

What I pity is that, not one, but two members of AGS didn't appear to have the cop on to realise what they did was wrong, or did they know what they were doing but adopted the attitute "I'm a Gaurd & I can do what I want"?

Whatever they were thinking at the time it has backlashed immensely and now they have sullied their careers with their convictions. I should really say they are more of a pity.

I hope it sends out a signal to all serving officers to think twice when they interact with the public with either attitudes mentioned above.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

soccerc

Trojan911 wrote: »

Your post is spot on except for the second last sentence, and if you see in my post I agreed with the conviction as well, people just cannot be bullied or pushed around for doing nothing outside the law. As a former member (Met Pol) I knew my powers and didn't abuse them. I don't gloat either way. Justice has been served, that's good enough for me.

Yes, they acted well outside their powers and a court has recognised this and has rightly convicted them of the alleged charges.

What I pity is that, not one, but two members of AGS didn't appear to have the cop on to realise what they did was wrong, or did they know what they were doing but adopted the attitute "I'm a Gaurd & I can do what I want"?

Whatever they were thinking at the time it has backlashed immensely and now they have sullied their careers with their convictions. I should really say they are more of a pity.

I hope it sends out a signal to all serving officers to think twice when they interact with the public with either attitudes mentioned above.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

Thanks Trojan for the clarification.

It was these words from your post that confused me "their apparent inapropriate behaviour".

PCPhoto

Deleted User wrote: »

Not quite - district court is not a court of record.

Ha !

District Court conviction is a conviction and IS recorded on a persons file..... and an assault conviction could result in the gardai loosing their jobs - which is more than likely going to be their main reason for appealing the decision.

and the judge will *Most likely* support their side (on appeal).

* = based on my knowledge of the courts and legal system - working at the courts for nearly 6years now

Beano

PCPhoto wrote: »

Ha !

District Court conviction is a conviction and IS recorded on a persons file.....

the quote you replied to was:

district court is not a court of record.

All this means that decisions made in these courts do make a precedent in law. nothing to do with not being a conviction.

Ettna

Its not against the law in Ireland to take photographs in a public place so why do the Gardai not know this. I did a night course given by a professional photographer and he set it out clearly, though he said he would make sure not to include children in his shots. What were the Gardai doing outside that pub that they did not want recorded? Makes you wonder.

humberklog

Ettna wrote: »

Its not against the law in Ireland to take photographs in a public place so why do the Gardai not know this. I did a night course given by a professional photographer and he set it out clearly, though he said he would make sure not to include children in his shots. What were the Gardai doing outside that pub that they did not want recorded? Makes you wonder.

Did this photofgrapher state why he wouldn't include children in his shots?
Sounds barking mad to me, was he a nutter of sorts or did he appear generally well rounded?

Covey

humberklog wrote: »

Did this photofgrapher state why he wouldn't include children in his shots?
Sounds barking mad to me, was he a nutter of sorts or did he appear generally well rounded?

Here here, on that basis I should be packing my bags for a very long stretch.

humberklog

Covey wrote: »

Here here, on that basis I should be packing my bags for a very long stretch.

See why?... you're not professional:pac:.

Covey

This attempt at exclusion of children from modern photography is really absurd though.

Ettna

He did not mean exclude them completely just to be very careful in street photography as some parents not all can get very protective/aggressive/confrontational,(cant think of the right word maybe it suspicious) if you start including their kids in your shots. He was very strong on the rights of photographers, I just did not put that very well there.

Is it an easy thing to do, wander down Grafton Street or the main street of any town and just take any shot you like of anyone. I come across posts from people who dont feel comfortable about it. I know I would not be. I notice that groups of people from this site get together for outdoor photography shoots in Dublin etc. People are less suspicious of a group, safety and courage in numbers!

PCPhoto

PCPhoto wrote: »

Ha !

District Court conviction is a conviction and IS recorded on a persons file..... and an assault conviction could result in the gardai loosing their jobs - which is more than likely going to be their main reason for appealing the decision.

and the judge will *Most likely* support their side (on appeal).

* = based on my knowledge of the courts and legal system - working at the courts for nearly 6years now

Thanks for that. Try reading the post the next time before replying.

Burnt

Just to keep this in perspective, we should look at the hassle
our neighbours across the water; either direction, have to put
up with. The Gardai are in general pretty relaxed and display alot
more common sense when it comes on the jumpin' on potential
terrorist photographers and the like.

humberklog

Burnt wrote: »

Just to keep this in perspective, we should look at the hassle
our neighbours across the water; either direction, have to put
up with. The Gardai are in general pretty relaxed and display alot
more common sense when it comes on the jumpin' on potential
terrorist photographers and the like.

Well it's not really that though is it (that they're relaxed)? It's a point of law...they have no right to. So in fairness it's more about society in general taking a slap on the back and nothing to do with the Gardai. They got laws to enforce and photoing on the street has nothing to do with them...if it did then it'd be a diffferent story.

PCPhoto

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for that. Try reading the post the next time before replying.

I wasnt referring to whether or not the judgement could be made a precedent or not - I was talking about the criminal side of the court - offering my opinion on WHY the gardai would be appealing the decision and the likelyhood of it being overturned.

I deal with the criminal side of the courts and dont know much about the case law etc

MY APOLOGIES IF MY POST WAS MISINTERPRETED - DUE TO QUOTING A PREVIOUS POST

Fajitas!

At the same time, a lot of it is an easy bit of 'rabble rabble rabble' for the redtops to shout out about. There's another thread here about shooting in the UK, and most replies from anyone with experience have been in a positive light.

The Met are generally good guys, with a difficult, busy, busy job. Not that our own aren't, but there's a hell of a population difference. Manners and common sense'll get people far.

PCPhoto

Fajitas! wrote: »

At the same time, a lot of it is an easy bit of 'rabble rabble rabble' for the redtops to shout out about. There's another thread here about shooting in the UK, and most replies from anyone with experience have been in a positive light.

The Met are generally good guys, with a difficult, busy, busy job. Not that our own aren't, but there's a hell of a population difference. Manners and common sense'll get people far.

I agree with this - but in general I have found that a person with knowledge of the law generally believes they are above it....maybe a bit strong of a phrase but people that understand and know the law - are capable of using its "loopholes" and interpretations to suit their own agendas.

I have had members of special branch ask me to delete images that I have taken of them (I was photographing loads of people and they might have been photographed or maybe were in the background) ...anyway.... I refused and within 30mins I was after receiving a phone call from my boss at the time basically explaining to me that I had a choice of delete the image or loose my job. (he didnt want to upset the gardai)

Covey

To be honest it's very clear cut.

Should the gardai insist on that play you've written or poem or cartoon being burnt with a cigarette lighter. Of course not, those days are thankfully long gone.

Deleting photographs or video is TOTALLY illegal and should not be condoned or entertained in any shape or form. The Gardai are well trained and know that and anyone stepping over that line deserves what they get.

Burnt

humberklog wrote: »

Well it's not really that though is it (that they're relaxed)? It's a point of law...they have no right to.

Perhaps my language is a bit sloppy and I acknowledge your point. What I was trying to get at is that we shouldn't be too quick to tar everyone with the same brush.

In regards to Fajita's points, the met are by in large polite and professional, and if you respond in kind; things will generally be cool. The majority of my bad experience have been with the CSO or what ever their title is; little tin gods.

humberklog

Yeah I've a lot of time for the Met and have found other constabularies to be bang on and helpful but I have found the Gardai to be generally unhelpful and down right wrong at times.
I'm knocking about taking photos of people that are handcuffed around the city (A+E, courts etc.) at the moment and have had to explain more than once (a lot) to the garda attached to them that there's not an issue with it. The people in cuffs are generally more than happy to have the pic taken but less so (and worringly less knowledgeably) is the garda.

opti76

what these 2 gardai did was wrong very wrong ...

speaking as a garda and a photographer be wary of photographing gardai dealing wih an incident ... DPP vs Bradish allows gardai to seize any and all footage of an incident pertaining to there case..
so if your recording an incident be it on your phone, camera, camcorder and a member of an garda siochana see's you it can be seized and will not be returned until proceedings have been completed.which can take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years depending on the nature of the incident ..


ive never had an issue with getting my picture taken while working bar 1 incident where a gentleman decided it would be funny to set a flash off in my eyes i was busy dealing with a traffic accident he asked if he could have his picture taken with me i said not at the minute sir but if you give me 10 minutes il gladly step in for a photo... he just set the flash off in my eyes blinding me .. so he was arrested for assault...

Masada

The key point being there, the camera's footage can seized for the purpose of evidence. not for a muscle flexing paranoid copper, and you will get it back with its contents intact.

And some poor eejit get a criminal record, assault no less, for using his flash in your face. quality peace keeping example there.

mrboswell

opti76 wrote: »

what these 2 gardai did was wrong very wrong ...

speaking as a garda and a photographer be wary of photographing gardai dealing wih an incident ... DPP vs Bradish allows gardai to seize any and all footage of an incident pertaining to there case..
so if your recording an incident be it on your phone, camera, camcorder and a member of an garda siochana see's you it can be seized and will not be returned until proceedings have been completed.which can take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years depending on the nature of the incident ..


ive never had an issue with getting my picture taken while working bar 1 incident where a gentleman decided it would be funny to set a flash off in my eyes i was busy dealing with a traffic accident he asked if he could have his picture taken with me i said not at the minute sir but if you give me 10 minutes il gladly step in for a photo... he just set the flash off in my eyes blinding me .. so he was arrested for assault...

Fair enough for asking him to wait but "assault" is a bit of a joke.
If thats the case people are "assaulted" with flash "guns" every day and I don't hear you going on about all the other cases...

PCPhoto

PCPhoto wrote: »

I wasnt referring to whether or not the judgement could be made a precedent or not - I was talking about the criminal side of the court - offering my opinion on WHY the gardai would be appealing the decision and the likelyhood of it being overturned.

I deal with the criminal side of the courts and dont know much about the case law etc

MY APOLOGIES IF MY POST WAS MISINTERPRETED - DUE TO QUOTING A PREVIOUS POST

No problem, I thought you were having a go at me.

opti76

mrboswell wrote: »

Fair enough for asking him to wait but "assault" is a bit of a joke.
If thats the case people are "assaulted" with flash "guns" every day and I don't hear you going on about all the other cases...

were complaints made in the other cases??

i made a complaint as i was entitled to.

PCPhoto

if the guy was already told by the gardai to move on (like Opti said .... he would have posed if the guy had waited until he was finished doing what he was doing)

nothing more annoying than someone bugging you when you are in the middle of something.

its harsh to call it assault but the letter of the law is exactly that...assault against the person doesnt just mean hitting someone.... I've been assaulted on several occasions - due to the nature of my work.

mrboswell

opti76 wrote: »

were complaints made in the other cases??

i made a complaint as i was entitled to.

PCPhoto wrote: »

if the guy was already told by the gardai to move on (like Opti said .... he would have posed if the guy had waited until he was finished doing what he was doing)

nothing more annoying than someone bugging you when you are in the middle of something.

its harsh to call it assault but the letter of the law is exactly that...assault against the person doesnt just mean hitting someone.... I've been assaulted on several occasions - due to the nature of my work.

Lads lets not be ridiculous here:

Opti - yes you were entitled to make a complaint but "assault"?? Complaints are not made by Gardai or security that deal with press photographers that regularly have POWERFUL flashes fired in their faces without any issue. You arrested someone (who was probably drunk, I presume) for "assaulting" you by firing a flash on a camera. I'm also presuming that it was a point and shoot without an external flash gun so I'll also presume that you thought you'd teach him a lesson rather than giving him a stern warning in the first place while you were dealing with the other situation. Bad crowd control in my opinion.

PC - We only have walk up and down Grafton St. on a Saturday night to see numerous people bugging people that are going about their own business but it usually managed with a bit of patience particularly when drink is involved, as I imagine it was it this case. Bugging someone is hardly the crime of the century.
With regard to Opti saying he was "assaulted" - if he was "threatened" by "physical harm" then fair enough but I don't really think that one photo taken with a flash from a point and shoot constitutes a threat or any physical harm. Whether or not Opti was or had been forthcoming by posing for photos in the past is irrelevant. It was a typical overreaction that is regularly seen with regard to people taking photos in the vicinity of Gardai.

Anyway all that being said I'm not trying to personally attack Opti. I just feel that by trying to distance himself from the highly inappropriate behavior of a number of Gardai I feel that he contradicted himself by arresting a fool that could have been handled differently. I certainly don't want to go off-topic.

humberklog

opti76 wrote: »

what these 2 gardai did was wrong very wrong ...




so he was arrested for assault...

So...eh...what was the result of this case that you brought?

Was it a real court or some wierd kinda Gabriel Garcia Maquez type court room scenario? Where anything completely nutty may pop up and the convicted can be sent off for a few years to sea in half a cocoanut shell and has to indure a rain of frogs apon his head?

soccerc

A bit more detail from todays Evening Herald.

TWO gardai have been found guilty of assaulting a passer-by who filmed officers breaking up a fight outside a pub.

Eoin Lawless was dragged up against a garda van and kneed in the back of the legs when he refused to hand over his camera, a court heard.

Garda Gavin Keegan (28) and Garda Damien Kildea (26) pleaded not guilty and claimed Mr Lawless fell off his bicycle during a tussle for the camera.

But they were found guilty of assaulting or grabbing Mr Lawess, a Shell to Sea protester, leaving him with bruises.

Keegan was fined €650 and Kildea €500.

The pair, who both had commendations for excellent police work, were each ordered to pay €500 compensation to the grassroots activist.

The gardai had been called to provide urgent assistance at the Cat and Cage pub in Drumcondra following a fight between a group of Travellers, Dublin District Court heard.

Garda Kildea said he saw Mr Lawless recording and he genuinely felt what he was doing was wrong, though he said he now realised he had no legal right to take the camera. A judge said Mr Lawless was going about his lawful business, and the gardai did not act lawfully.

Mr Lawless insisted he did not want the gardai to be "scapegoats" or lose their jobs.

"My main issue wasn't with the incident itself. It was the mentality, that gardai think this kind of thing is okay and these gardai were trained to behave like that," he said.

A criminal damage charge against Garda Keegan was dismissed after his lawyer, John Ferry, said there was no evidence he deleted images from the camera.

The officers were summoned to appear before the Dublin District Court at the suit of the DPP following a Garda Ombudsman investigation into an accident outside the Cat and Cage pub on June 28, 2008.

Mr Lawless told the court: "It seemed strange to me that I was being lightly roughed up for just filming."

DaireQuinlan

Ah the herald, what a rag. Never miss a chance to stick in some completely incidental detail to try and put some spin on the story ...

herald wrote:

But they were found guilty of assaulting or grabbing Mr Lawess, a Shell to Sea protester, leaving him with bruises.

The pair, who both had commendations for excellent police work, were each ordered to pay €500 compensation to the grassroots activist.

(bold mine)

What on earth has that to do with the case ?

Covey

soccerc wrote: »

Garda Kildea said he saw Mr Lawless recording and he genuinely felt what he was doing was wrong,

though he said he now realised he had no legal right to take the camera. ."

Thats the worrying bit I think. That gardai think photographing in public is wrong and don't know the law, or maybe even want to bully people into "their" version of the law.

Maybe an early wake up call for the gardai, who hopefully will think twice in a similar situation.

For the record:

Assault is not when a person makes contact with you, but rather when you feel intimitated or threatened by someone. Battery is when someone makes physical contact. I remember a case from English law from the 16/17 hundreds when a case of assault was taken and held because a knight rested his hand on the pommel of his sword, thus inducing fear in the person who took the case.

Interesting that the guards weren't taken for battery, which would make believe that there was little evidence of actual physical contact being made with the photographers.

opti76

mrboswell wrote: »

Lads lets not be ridiculous here:

Opti - yes you were entitled to make a complaint but "assault"?? Complaints are not made by Gardai or security that deal with press photographers that regularly have POWERFUL flashes fired in their faces without any issue. You arrested someone (who was probably drunk, I presume) for "assaulting" you by firing a flash on a camera. I'm also presuming that it was a point and shoot without an external flash gun so I'll also presume that you thought you'd teach him a lesson rather than giving him a stern warning in the first place while you were dealing with the other situation. Bad crowd control in my opinion.

PC - We only have walk up and down Grafton St. on a Saturday night to see numerous people bugging people that are going about their own business but it usually managed with a bit of patience particularly when drink is involved, as I imagine it was it this case. Bugging someone is hardly the crime of the century.
With regard to Opti saying he was "assaulted" - if he was "threatened" by "physical harm" then fair enough but I don't really think that one photo taken with a flash from a point and shoot constitutes a threat or any physical harm. Whether or not Opti was or had been forthcoming by posing for photos in the past is irrelevant. It was a typical overreaction that is regularly seen with regard to people taking photos in the vicinity of Gardai.

Anyway all that being said I'm not trying to personally attack Opti. I just feel that by trying to distance himself from the highly inappropriate behavior of a number of Gardai I feel that he contradicted himself by arresting a fool that could have been handled differently. I certainly don't want to go off-topic.

assumptions are normally wrong ...

he wasnt drunk and it was a 350d i have the same camera that the flash unit was put about 4-6 inches from my face as i was dealing with a traffic accident ... if you have a dslr go set the flash off 4- 6 inches from your face now tell me what you can see???

assault is any injurious force permanent or temporary.
and i didnt arrest him my colleague did.. i receivied an apology and a charitable contribution was made to the guide dogs for the blind so my complaint was withdrawn.

the difference betwen this incident and a normal person taking a photo is intent .. and he was reckless as to whether an injury would occur if hed stood across the road and took a snap id have probably dealt with it differently but he didnt he acted recklessly and he was arrested as a result of his recklessness.

but as i said the guide dogs got a donation out of it and i wasnt permanently injured.

but as my original post said what these 2 gardai did was stupid and they got what they deserved..

Covey

opti76 wrote: »

if hed stood across the road and took a snap id have probably dealt with it differently

Probably !:(

You don't seem to understand that then you would have no reason to "deal" with anything. You and a lot of police "folk" don't seem to get this at all.

humberklog

opti76 wrote: »

but as my original post said what these 2 gardai did was stupid and they got what they deserved..

Disagree here...they got off lightly. Sure the fine sounds about right but they should've been sacked too or sent back to Templemore for 6 months refresher course and earn minimum wage (no benefits: this part might take a bit of explaining to them). They obviously weren't paying enough attention first time around.

Covey

Well nobody should be sacked over it tbh. If there was battery involved then thats a different story.

mrboswell

opti76 wrote: »

assumptions are normally wrong ...

he wasnt drunk and it was a 350d i have the same camera that the flash unit was put about 4-6 inches from my face as i was dealing with a traffic accident ... if you have a dslr go set the flash off 4- 6 inches from your face now tell me what you can see???

assault is any injurious force permanent or temporary.
and i didnt arrest him my colleague did.. i receivied an apology and a charitable contribution was made to the guide dogs for the blind so my complaint was withdrawn.

the difference betwen this incident and a normal person taking a photo is intent .. and he was reckless as to whether an injury would occur if hed stood across the road and took a snap id have probably dealt with it differently but he didnt he acted recklessly and he was arrested as a result of his recklessness.

but as i said the guide dogs got a donation out of it and i wasnt permanently injured.

but as my original post said what these 2 gardai did was stupid and they got what they deserved..

Did he really "intended" to permanently or temporarily injure you?? Just like the judge said that there was no proof that the garda deleted the images I doubt that you could prove that the fool with the camera "intended" to injure you.

Apols if it wasn't you - I believe it was your colleague that overreacted.

I have had a more powerful flash than the on-camera 350d flash fired in front of me (which I also have) and yes it momentarily causes loss of vision but its not a biggie - a very harsh warning probably would have sufficed.
To be fair I wasn't there and you were so I can only base an opinion on what I have read from it. However I think this case was an abuse of power typical of Gardai in cases where forms of media are involved. What I'm not sure of is whether such cases involve lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law

He may have been very reckless but by your own definition "intent" is the difference. Most reckless behavior doesn't involve intent...

humberklog

Covey wrote: »

Well nobody should be sacked over it tbh. If there was battery involved then thats a different story.

Ok this is stretching however....If a photographer working for a company was shooting a wedding then took umbridge with a guest and decided to cuff'm, bundle him into his car, take back to his office and then give him a grilling...the agency wouldn't sack'm?
This lot were bang out of order and will learn nothing from this slap on the hand. Sure it adressed the assualt but hasn't gone anywhere to adressing the abuse of power and job negligence.

Covey

As I said further up, they still don't get it.