Gardai convicted for assult on photographer

humberklog

Covey wrote: »

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

Yeah, I know. It's just disappointing to see their assault charges only being dealt with simply as that in its intirety.Nothing else. Sure the courts only deal in the offences comitted regardless of job but the Gardai should be passing down their own punishment on them too...just as would any employer whose employees were foung to be so uninformed of the jobs they hold and so negligent to bring that company's name into such disrepute. Any other firm would take serious action. They did cuff a guy, bundle him into a van and take him back to where they work...and that's fukcing nuts.

Trojan911

mrboswell wrote: »

Did he really "intended" to permanently or temporarily injure you??

It dosen't matter. He was reckless in doing so.

In the case Opti76 has highlighted I agree with the course of action his colleague took.

bernard0368

I think the fact the ombudsman took the case and a garda super, sent it to the DPP, says a lot. The whole culture of blue on blue looking after each other, would lead me to think that there was a bit more to it.

opti76

opti76 wrote: »

assumptions are normally wrong ...

assault is any injurious force permanent or temporary.

Not quite - you might have been assaulted in this case, as there was no contact between you and the person who might have been assaulting you.

Had you, for example, been punched subsequently, then the flash gun incident was one of potential assault and the punch is battery. In Ireland, assault and battery are two very different concepts.

As you are a guard, I'm somewhat surprised you are getting this wrong.

mrboswell

Trojan911 wrote: »

It dosen't matter. He was reckless in doing so.

In the case Opti76 has highlighted I agree with the course of action his colleague took.

Only reason I mentioned it was because Opti used the word "intent" as the difference between the 2 cases.
As I said earlier - undoubtedly he was reckless and an eejet but we all have our opinions on it so I'll leave it there

rahtkennades

I think people need to learn that in a society people have not only rights but also responsibilities.

In the case of the two gardai, the photographer has the right to take photos in a public place, and the gardai have the responsibility to allow him exercise his rights, and to inform themselves of the law. I'm glad the judge saw this.

In the case Opti76 had, I think that Opti had the right to unobstructed use of his eyes, and to be able to perform his job, and the photographer had the responsibility to not be a complete tool and to allow him to do his job. What if as a result of being blinded temporarily by the flash, Opti had stepped out in front of a car etc?

Too many people are eager to say "I have the right to A, B, C", but rarely are people heard to say "I accept responsibility for X, Y, Z"

Anyway, just my tuppence.

opti76

Deleted User wrote: »

Not quite - you might have been assaulted in this case, as there was no contact between you and the person who might have been assaulting you.

Had you, for example, been punched subsequently, then the flash gun incident was one of potential assault and the punch is battery. In Ireland, assault and battery are two very different concepts.

As you are a guard, I'm somewhat surprised you are getting this wrong.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—
[GA]
( a ) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or
[GA]
( b ) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,
[GA]
without the consent of the other.
[GA]
(2) In subsection (1)(a), "force" includes—
[GA]
( a ) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and
[GA]
( b ) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.
[GA]
(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.
[GA]
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.


oh dear

You see, you forgot to include links that work, and also that assault is restricted to 'non violent' contact.

So I can shake your hand, and you can't get my on battery as the contact is non violent. However, you can get my on assault if I am causing apprehension of impending battery. I can throw a rock at you, if I hit - thats battery, if I miss, thats assault. You can wield your truncheon at me (without due cause) - if you hit me, thats battery but if you don't, thats assault.

You seem to be missing this subtly. This also applies in the original post, as the guards were only found guilty of assault, and not of battery, which is quite interesting given the facts of the case as reported. Assault in Ireland is not like assault in the US (and US tv) which blurs the ground between battery and assault. A person convicted of assault here will not have made a violent physical contact with someone, but rather, just have implied that they were about to.

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

You see, you forgot to include links that work

He's quoting from the 'Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997'.

LINK: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/index.html

Which also includes the following:

...
28.—(1) The following common law offences are hereby abolished—
( a ) assault and battery,
( b ) assault occasioning actual bodily harm,
( c ) kidnapping, and
( d ) false imprisonment.

...

Deleted User wrote: »

... and also that assault is restricted to 'non violent' contact.

So I can shake your hand, and you can't get my on battery as the contact is non violent. However, you can get my on assault if I am causing apprehension of impending battery. I can throw a rock at you, if I hit - thats battery, if I miss, thats assault. You can wield your truncheon at me (without due cause) - if you hit me, thats battery but if you don't, thats assault.

Does this not seem to be outside of your limited definition of assault?:

• "2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—
  
• ( a ) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or"

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to be missing this subtly. This also applies in the original post, as the guards were only found guilty of assault, and not of battery, which is quite interesting given the facts of the case as reported. Assault in Ireland is not like assault in the US (and US tv) which blurs the ground between battery and assault. A person convicted of assault here will not have made a violent physical contact with someone, but rather, just have implied that they were about to.

Is there any chance that you are mixing up common law long standing with more recent written law?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but it looks like you may be wrong.

That is quite possible - I encountered this from tortious, rather then criminal action and I had thought that the offences were similar, which it seems that they aren't.

Apologies to opti for questioning professional knowledge!

Captain Flaps

For what it's worth I think opti and his colleague were in the right. I might have handled the situation differently, but I wasn't there and don't know all the circumstances. If the guy took a photo with flash from across the road fair enough, no problem there. However, coming right up and firing off a flash 6 inches from opti's face is not within what anyone would consider normal usage of the camera or flash.

If the photog was really trying to get a particular shot, he should have asked opti before invading his personal space and half blinding him. Legally, there's no reason he would have, but people are too focused on what they can get away with 'legally' these days.

opti76

Deleted User wrote: »

no need for an apology zaraba this discussion is what board is all about discussion different opinion's etc

humberklog

Bumpitybump.

Captain Flaps

Is there something new to add to the conversation or did you just bump for the sake of it?

humberklog

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Is there something new to add to the conversation or did you just bump for the sake of it?

Someone was looking for it and I'm crap at linking. Why do you ask?

humberklog

?

Fenster

Ban! Ban the bumper!

Captain Flaps

I wasn't trying to be smart, I thought something might have happened with it. Maybe the dude had sued the gardai or something? I actually went off to check the news sites to see if I'd missed something. I was just wondering, didn't mean to cause offence.

jank

Very interesting thread. Is it OK then taking a picture of a bouncer? Or is this "illegal"?

TinyExplosions

jank wrote: »

Very interesting thread. Is it OK then taking a picture of a bouncer? Or is this "illegal"?

If you're in a public space, and he is too, it's perfectly legal

opti76

TinyExplosions wrote: »

If you're in a public space, and he is too, it's perfectly legal

just dont use a flash too close to his face

ValueInIreland

Sometimes rather than argue the easiest thing to do is, protest (verbally) a little, then DELETE the images in front of the Garda (or whoever), go home and run Image Rescue!

humberklog

ValueInIreland wrote: »

Sometimes rather than argue the easiest thing to do is, protest (verbally) a little, then DELETE the images in front of the Garda (or whoever), go home and run Image Rescue!

That's terrible advice as it reinforces a wrong perception of how the law stands to the garda. Basic stuff he should have learned in Templemore.

Terrible advice.

Captain Flaps

humberklog wrote: »

That's terrible advice as it reinforces a wrong perception of how the law stands to the garda. Basic stuff he should have learned in Templemore.

Terrible advice.

Absolutely agree. The guards have absolutely no right, legal or otherwise, to delete images from your memory card. If they honestly believe you're up to no good with your camera, there are certain situations where your gear can be seized. If they (or you) start deleting images, this could be perceived as tampering with evidence.

I can think of no situation where I'd delete stuff off my memory card in the presence of the gardai. That said, I've been approached by the cops countless times about being out late taking pictures, and if you're polite to them they're generally sound. I've never been asked anything more intrusive than am I a resident of the area. Deleting stuff off your card makes it look like you've got something to hide.