I issued my first arrest warrant Saturday...

Manic Moran

And it confused the hell out of the police.

*ring...ring...* (Non-emergency number)
"Dispatch"
"Good morning. My name is Captain Moran. I'm issuing an arrest warrant and I need to know who to email or fax it to"
"I'm sorry? Come again?"
"I am issueing the warrant for the arrest of an AWOL soldier from my unit, and I need to know who to send the document to. And a 'phone number to confirm receipt"
"Er...Can you hold on for a moment please?"

I'll give 'em credit. They rolled with the punch. Still a fair bit of confusion, even as they processed it.
"Which judge signed the warrant?"
"I did. I'm the issueing authority under the statute."
"You can do that?"
"Yep"
"And what do you want us to do with him?"
"Bring him to me at the unit here in Lyon county"
"We don't do that, we can lock him in the jail pending extradition"
"No extradition required. I am authorised to command you to bring him to me"
"That's not our policy"
"Here's the catch. Your policy says you don't. The Statutes say that you do, but they also say how you can reclaim expenses. Look at NRS 412.265..."

Haven't quite figured out how to get warrants entered into the national database, but at least local law enforcement have been educated. Between first 'phone call and the police knocking on the guy's door took about an hour. Not bad, considering in effect they just get this 'phone call from some random person outside the legal system saying "Go arrest this guy." Got to give them credit for flexibility.

In the meantime, troopers unit-wide are suddenly reconsidering the consequences of missing their army weekends and I'm still on my power buzz...

NTM

Delancey

Was he just a few hours late for drill or had he actually deserted ?

Any reason why you didn't send out the M.P.'s for him ?

Manic Moran

This was the third consecutive training session he had missed.

Any reason why you didn't send out the M.P.'s for him ?

I can't command MPs to do anything. I can ask, but why should I ask to take them away from their own training when the law allows me to get the civilian police (who are at least an hour's drive closer) to do it?

NTM

cursai

is it not 'good policy' to have military police deal with military judicial matters. I know thats the case in Ireland. If a soldier gets arrested, the military police are informed and they tend to prosecute within their own court system!

Manic Moran

We distinguish between civil and military offences. If it's a breach of military law, he's dealt with under military processes. If it's a breach of civil law, we'll let the civil court system deal with it (Though it may well have effect on his military career).

So in this case, as AWOL was a military offence, when he showed up he was dealt with under the military system (i.e. I demoted him a couple of grades). The 'prosecution system' has nothing to do with the people who actually pick him up and bring him to 'court'. I just have the (evidently very rarely used) authority to command civil police to do the picking up on my behalf, a fact which proved to be a surprise to both the police agencies and the soldier in question. I always knew I could do it, what was a surprise to me was just how easy it was: I don't need anyone's permission, I just print and sign a letter.

NTM

Delancey

Wow , you get to issue the warrant and then act as judge and jury ?!! I can see why the power would get you buzzing

But would it not be better wasting the MP's time than the Gardaí's who may have other more important (in the grand scheme of things) things to be doing?

Manic Moran

Time/Benefit.

My unit is in a place called 'Yerington', about 45 minutes from Carson City, where the AWOL soldier lived. The MPs are in Reno, about 40 minutes the other side of Carson. For the MPs to go pick him up would have been an hour and a half each way, and since they're also reservists, that's three hours' plus worth of training out of their one-weekend-a-month which they won't be able to get back. CCPD would have been out and back in an hour and a half flat, performing a duty assigned to it by the legislature.

NTM

eroo

No extradition required. I am authorised to command you to bring him to me

At that point I would have politely told you to haul yourself into the station and issue your 'command' in person!

Corcioch

eroo wrote: »

At that point I would have politely told you to haul yourself into the station and issue your 'command' in person!

Indeed.


Seems like a poor misuse of Police Resources imo . . . .

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

Time/Benefit.

My unit is in a place called 'Yerington', about 45 minutes from Carson City, where the AWOL soldier lived. The MPs are in Reno, about 40 minutes the other side of Carson. For the MPs to go pick him up would have been an hour and a half each way, and since they're also reservists, that's three hours' plus worth of training out of their one-weekend-a-month which they won't be able to get back. CCPD would have been out and back in an hour and a half flat, performing a duty assigned to it by the legislature.

NTM

Would you not consider the best training to be to actually do the job you are training to do?

Manic Moran

At that point I would have politely told you to haul yourself into the station and issue your 'command' in person!

The word is taken straight from the statutes. If the man has exception to this, he can take it up with the legislature.

Corcioch wrote: »

Seems like a poor misuse of Police Resources imo . . . .

The police weren't complaining about it, they were just very surprised by the entire concept. And why is it a poor use of resources? They were the most efficient method of picking the guy up, in an operation specifically entered in the statutes for that purpose. Warrants are routinely served on behalf of outside organisations in other jurisdictions, why should a a military organisation be treated any differently?

Would you not consider the best training to be to actually do the job you are training to do?

Most MPs in the US Army are 'battlefield MPs', they run around in the rear areas conducting security missions, convoy control, and so on. The nearest 'garrison' MPs are eight hours' drive away.

NTM

Corcioch

Manic Moran wrote: »

The word is taken straight from the statutes. If the man has exception to this, he can take it up with the legislature.



The police weren't complaining about it, they were just very surprised by the entire concept. And why is it a poor use of resources? They were the most efficient method of picking the guy up, in an operation specifically entered in the statutes for that purpose. Warrants are routinely served on behalf of outside organisations in other jurisdictions, why should a a military organisation be treated any differently?



Most MPs in the US Army are 'battlefield MPs', they run around in the rear areas conducting security missions, convoy control, and so on. The nearest 'garrison' MPs are eight hours' drive away.

NTM

IMO its a very poor misuse of Police Resources as they are going to expend time and officers searching for a guy whos only offence has been to fail to show up to training.

Its not like he's committed any crime and or offence against the community.

So they go searching for this guy as opposed to Detecting and Investigating Crimes and Offences . . . Police Officers proactively patrolling roads and streets to prevent and or detect . . .Officers well doing Police Work . . . . .as opposed to doing the Military's housekeeping.

Manic Moran

Corcioch wrote: »

Its not like he's committed any crime and or offence against the community.

It is a crime, and it's punishable by (given the amount of time he was AWOL), up to 6 months imprisonment, and a fine of 2/3 of his pay.

And it is also an offence against the community. It cost over $100,000 of the taxpayer's money to train the man, are you suggesting that the taxpayer should just write off the expense instead of spending the $500 or so to go pick him up?

Next, I'll lay bets that the repeat absenteeism rate in my unit is about to drop notably. The image of being dragged out by civilian law enforcement which is far more pervasive than MPs is going to have a much sharper impact. Again, resulting in efficiencies for the taxpayer.

Finally, the warrant isn't just to 'go to his house', though it's the first and most obvious thing to do. It gets entered into the national computer system, so if he gets pulled over for speeding two years from now while on his summer holidays in Florida, the cuffs go on him. MPs do not routinely patrol the streets, they tend to stay predominantly in military places which soldiers who are AWOL tend to avoid. Most AWOLs are picked up by civilian agencies in such a manner.

And since the legislature saw fit to specifically include provisions on civilian authorities serving military warrants, they don't seem to have thought it a misuse either.

NTM

eroo

Manic Moran wrote: »

The word is taken straight from the statutes. If the man has exception to this, he can take it up with the legislature.

Yes but how were they able to verify who you say you were? Also, it may be in the statutes over there, but if someone told me they were commanding me and they weren't police.. I would find it a little arrogant, especially over the phone

Most MPs in the US Army are 'battlefield MPs', they run around in the rear areas conducting security missions, convoy control, and so on. The nearest 'garrison' MPs are eight hours' drive away.

Yes, but the United States is not a battlefield so I'm sure it would have been feasible for the MP's to do what they are tasked to do.

goldie fish

I think this thread is displaying the main cultural difference between those on this side of the pond and those in the USA.
We always tend to question authority.

Manic Moran

eroo wrote: »

Yes but how were they able to verify who you say you were?

They have a number of methods. Firstly, I sent the warrant through my military email address. Secondly, the unit information was on the warrant, which is easy to verify either by calling the unit's publicly listed number or by calling OTAG (Nevada's version of the Pentagon). At the most extreme, they could have called the Lyon County Sherrif's office and had someone drop around the corner.

Also, it may be in the statutes over there, but if someone told me they were commanding me and they weren't police.. I would find it a little arrogant, especially over the phone

Intonation doesn't come across over email as well as it does over the 'phone.

Yes, but the United States is not a battlefield so I'm sure it would have been feasible for the MP's to do what they are tasked to do.

Their official tasking is to train for the battlefield. I'm sure they could have carried out the function, at greater increase in man-hours and dollars, but why not use someone whose full-time job involves arresting people, and allow the battlefield people to focus on that unique skillset?

NTM

gunnerfitzy

goldie fish wrote: »

I think this thread is displaying the main cultural difference between those on this side of the pond and those in the USA.
We always tend to question authority.

Are you serious? We accept absolutely anything that the government tell us to do with little more than a mumble.

Apologies for going off topic. !!

eroo

Manic Moran wrote: »

They have a number of methods. Firstly, I sent the warrant through my military email address. Secondly, the unit information was on the warrant, which is easy to verify either by calling the unit's publicly listed number or by calling OTAG (Nevada's version of the Pentagon). At the most extreme, they could have called the Lyon County Sherrif's office and had someone drop around the corner.

Fair enough, you didn't say you emailed them a copy of the warrant.

Their official tasking is to train for the battlefield. I'm sure they could have carried out the function, at greater increase in man-hours and dollars, but why not use someone whose full-time job involves arresting people, and allow the battlefield people to focus on that unique skillset?

Sorry but I still don't see why MP's couldn't handle their own affairs. Dragging a patrol car away from patrol duties for a few hours is not much better!

Manic Moran

Maybe if you didn't look at it as 'posessively?' Instead of "Police Business" and "Army Business" look at it as "The Taxpayers' Business" or "Government Business."

NTM

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe if you didn't look at it as 'posessively?' Instead of "Police Business" and "Army Business" look at it as "The Taxpayers' Business" or "Government Business."

NTM

Maybe ask the taxpayer what they would want their police doing. Patrolling their streets or going off for a couple of hours looking for an AWOL reserve when there are other reserve forces who's actual job this is.

OS119

foreign wrote: »

Maybe ask the taxpayer what they would want their police doing. Patrolling their streets or going off for a couple of hours looking for an AWOL reserve when there are other reserve forces who's actual job this is.

but as MM has explained, it is the job of the civil police in the US, as much as traffic violations and arresting muggers.

whether you think it shouldn't be is kind of irrelevent.

Paulzx

I have no idea what the point of this topic is

Hey, look at me i can get a man arrested with a phonecall to the cops.


Weird..

Corcioch

foreign wrote: »

Maybe ask the taxpayer what they would want their police doing. Patrolling their streets or going off for a couple of hours looking for an AWOL reserve when there are other reserve forces who's actual job this is.

He is only a flippin reserve!!! . . .an awol reserve . . . .lmfao . . . . .gets better and better.


Way better to look for him than go and detect crimes.

Delancey

Different countries have their own way of doing things , look at Italy for example , there the Caribineiri are actually part of the Defence Ministry and double as M.P.'s.
The U.S. has a huge military establishment so these sort of issues would be a lot more common there than in Ireland and their procedures have evolved as a result.

Corcioch

delancey42 wrote: »

Different countries have their own way of doing things , look at Italy for example , there the Caribineiri are actually part of the Defence Ministry and double as M.P.'s.
The U.S. has a huge military establishment so these sort of issues would be a lot more common there than in Ireland and their procedures have evolved as a result.

La Gendarmerie National en France are the same, They are part of the French Armed Forces, under the Dept of Defence but carry out a civilian policing role day to day.

delancey42

delancey42 wrote: »

Different countries have their own way of doing things , look at Italy for example , there the Caribineiri are actually part of the Defence Ministry and double as M.P.'s.
The U.S. has a huge military establishment so these sort of issues would be a lot more common there than in Ireland and their procedures have evolved as a result.

Yes other countries have a Military police but they also have a civil police. The US has a civil police. The US military have their own police. Let them police their own people and leave the civil police to their own work, unless it's a major crime.

OS119

foreign wrote: »

Yes other countries have a Military police but they also have a civil police. The US has a civil police. The US military have their own police. Let them police their own people and leave the civil police to their own work, unless it's a major crime.

being AWOL in the US is a serious crime - regardless of whether its regular or reserve service - its also, by staute, a matter for the US civil authorities.

don't confuse the practices and role of the RDF with those of other reserve forces and the societies that create them...

Delancey

Years ago I had a work colleague who was a former officer in the Austrian army , we had a serious problem with absenteeism at the time and he used to curse that he was now a civilian and unable to deal with offenders as he had when he was in the army.
As an officer he would send out M.P.'s or Civil Police , whichever was '' more convenient '' to arrest the AWOL's and bring them in - same as the U.S.
When the UK had a very large army ( National Service and all that ) it was common for ' Bobbies ' to arrest AWOL military personnel.

Ireland has a relatively small military and I suspect that is why these things are handled differently here.

Manic Moran

foreign wrote: »

Maybe ask the taxpayer what they would want their police doing. Patrolling their streets or going off for a couple of hours looking for an AWOL reserve when there are other reserve forces who's actual job this is.

You might be surprised at the answer. The military is held in high regard here, no other profession, possibly excepting firefighting, is given the same level of respect from the population. From random strangers buying you meals through upgrades to First Class on the airplane, the population have an expectation that the service and the people in it have performed honourably and selflessly. The flip side is that they also expect people to carry out the service that they gain that respect for and those who fail to carry it out are held in great disregard.

You also have the difference in opinion over 'whose actual job this is'.
By legal description, it is the police's job to do so: It's in the Statutes.
By practical reality, the MPs job is, when not actually fighting a war, training to fight that war. Driving a couple of hours to pick up an AWOL is not part of that job.

I have no idea what the point of this topic is

Hey, look at me i can get a man arrested with a phonecall to the cops.

Actually, the current disparity in opinion was part of it. I wasn't expecting the 'job' thread diversion, as much as commentary on the flexibility of the police service. When I first made the call, I was expecting a lot more procedural resistance than I actually encountered, the police proved to be very accomodating. Though I presume there is no direct analogy in the Irish system to my particular case, I also presume that on occasion even the Gardai have to deal with some unusual conditions which come out of left field, I was hoping to spark a little discussion on individual discretion on the part of 'line leadership.'

He is only a flippin reserve!!! . . .an awol reserve . . . .lmfao . . . . .gets better and better

Yes, a reserve. If you've not noticed, we reserves are earning our pay, I've personally done both Iraq and Afghanistan. If we're going to be used like regular forces, we need to be treated like regular forces, to include internal discipline. It also costs just as much to send a reservist to training as it does a regular soldier, the taxpayer has plenty invested in him. Plus he's carrying out national policy when deployed, another item the taxpayer should be concerned about.

Let them police their own people and leave the civil police to their own work, unless it's a major crime.

Does this distinction work the other way? If a local police force was overwhelmed by an incident, and the local Sheriff calls for a favour of a dozen soldiers to help for traffic control, under your logic, should the post commander tell the Sheriff to instead call in police from other jurisdictions under the Mutual Aid Pacts because it's not the Army's job to help the police? What's wrong with a little professional inter-service courtesy? We're all part of the same community, after all. How about when California's police agencies are overwhelmed during natural disasters such as wildfires, should CHP have, instead of calling in the National Guard to police the streets, gone to the hassle and expense of calling in Nevada State Troopers under Mutual Aid? After all, it's a policing job, let the police do it.

NTM

eroo

Does this distinction work the other way? If a local police force was overwhelmed by an incident, and the local Sheriff calls for a favour of a dozen soldiers to help for traffic control, under your logic, should the post commander tell the Sheriff to instead call in police from other jurisdictions under the Mutual Aid Pacts because it's not the Army's job to help the police? What's wrong with a little professional inter-service courtesy? We're all part of the same community, after all. How about when California's police agencies are overwhelmed during natural disasters such as wildfires, should CHP have, instead of calling in the National Guard to police the streets, gone to the hassle and expense of calling in Nevada State Troopers under Mutual Aid? After all, it's a policing job, let the police do it.

This is completely different to what is being discussed here. Yes the police may ask for military assistance as like ATCP here; but if a military convoy is invloved in a crash the military would call in the police to help.

That is assistance in certain situations.

The issue that is raised here is civil police doing the job of military police, and as a result using up police resources.

Paulzx

Manic Moran wrote: »

How about when California's police agencies are overwhelmed during natural disasters such as wildfires, should CHP have, instead of calling in the National Guard to police the streets, gone to the hassle and expense of calling in Nevada State Troopers under Mutual Aid? After all, it's a policing job, let the police do it.

NTM

Come on!! You can hardly equate a huge natural disaster with a single soldier going awol. That's over egging it

Manic Moran

Ok, so you're saying that there's a line to be drawn.

Let's take two other real-world examples, then.

Small town sheriff in Florida has a homicide in his jurisdiction. His small police force is completely overstretched with the investigation and telephones the local military base to ask for a loan of a few troops for a few hours to perform traffic control around the incident location. (In the event, the base commander sent about a dozen lads out)

Small town sheriff in Colorado is faced with a renegade individual who is going around knocking down houses using a bulldozer. He calls the local base for two soldiers in a helicopter gunship to stop the bulldozer. (In the event, the bulldozer got stuck before the commander had to make a decision)

The first, particularly, really is a trivial use for soldiers and perfectly suited for a telephone call to the neighbouring Sheriff or the Florida Highway Patrol. Is, for lack of a better term, a 'good neighbour' going to say 'no'?

NTM

Paulzx

Manic Moran wrote: »

. He calls the local base for two soldiers in a helicopter gunship to stop the bulldozer.

NTM

:eek::eek::eek:

Only in America:D

Manic Moran

In fairness, the individual in question had made some slight modifications from the original Komatsu design.





NTM

eroo

Seriously, you can't compare these cases to a soldier going awol. These would come under aid to the civil power. It doesn't really work in reverse because military are usually seen as a self sustaining last resort.

Still don't see why military police can't fulfill their main role because they are busy training. You can bet the police were busy when they had to deal with your warrant.

Manic Moran

eroo wrote: »

Seriously, you can't compare these cases to a soldier going awol. These would come under aid to the civil power. It doesn't really work in reverse because military are usually seen as a self sustaining last resort.

So what you're saying is that routine Army work is so valued that there is nothing wrong with dragging them away from their daily drudge to perform a trivial civilian traffic control mission, whereas police work is so valued that there is definitely something wrong with taking them away from their daily drudge to go perform a trivial military arrest mission?

It is to be noted that I have several troopers in my unit who are police on the civilian side, including the AWOL soldier's squad leader. Nobody has expressed any concerns at my action, several have expressed approval (including the squad leader). However, next time I see them, I'll make a point to ask them their honest opinion directly.

Still don't see why military police can't fulfill their main role because they are busy training. You can bet the police were busy when they had to deal with your warrant.

The following are the doctrinal tasks performed by US MPs.

1. Maneuver and mobility support operations
2. Area security operations
3. Law and order operations
4. Internment and resettlement operations
5. Police intelligence operations

The current, high-tempo use of MPs in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is such that they need to be spending their very limited training time on life-saving things like 'how not to get blown up by an IED,' not performing a task which can be performed other agencies. Of course, police will say the reverse. It then just comes down to time. If the soldier in question was in the same town as my unit, I wouldn't have called anyone at all, and just dealt with the matter by sending my own guys down the road. The statute doesn't say I have to use the police, it just gives me the option at my discretion. If I'm going to be taking up someone's time, I'm going to chose the someone whose time is least taken up.

In all cases, however, no matter who goes out, if the individual is not at home, then there is no option but a warrant to the civil police agencies, since they are the only organisation likely to encounter the individual on a 'by chance' basis.

NTM

eroo

Fair enough the set up is different in the states, but I still hold the same opinions.

No offense intended, but what was the purpose of this thread?

Manic Moran

No offense intended, but what was the purpose of this thread?

Mainly to express my surprise (and approval) at the flexibility that the police showed. I had expected to have to go through a whole bunch of "Give me your number and I'll have someone look into it and call you back" or "I need to call to get guidance from my supervisor, it may take a while as the Captain doesn't work weekends." Instead, I got two friendly dispatchers, plus a deputy and a sergeant, all of whom were a bit bemused, but more than willing to make decisions on the spot on their own. A trait I find unfortunately rare in government agencies, where if something is a little out of the ordinary, one can expect all sorts of pain and inflexibility, and a trait whose existence, or lack thereof I am unaware of the status of in the Irish organisations.

I was kindof hoping to prompt some form of 'you know, we got a bizarre request once, and this is how we dealt with it' responses.

NTM

Corcioch

Paulzx wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

Only in America:D

Only in America Indeed was my first thought too . . . . . . .

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, the individual in question had made some slight modifications from the original Komatsu design.





NTM

And then I saw this . . . .and my next thought was . . . . .again . . . .Only in America, . . . . .would some complete lunatic do something like that.

Shield

Lads this is getting further and further away from an ES platform than I would like. Can we please bring this back relative to ES? Thanks.

Terrontress

It's quite ironic that cop friends of mine tell me that they don't like it that when they come upon normally law-abiding citizens they say "Why don't you catch real criminals instead of harassing me!?" or "Instead of catching criminals you are always doing paperwork".

In this thread we have self-identified Gardaí who are essentially complaining about others in the same way.

It's their job, it's the law and the Police have to enforce it, whether it's someone whose car tax is a few weeks out of date, is driving over the speed limit or the guy who is sent to prison for not paying the fine for recycling incorrectly at the bottle bank.

I'd be surprised if there are many Gardaí out there who have only ever used their time enforcing laws they have believed in.

Corcioch

Terrontress wrote: »

It's quite ironic that cop friends of mine tell me that they don't like it that when they come upon normally law-abiding citizens they say "Why don't you catch real criminals instead of harassing me!?" or "Instead of catching criminals you are always doing paperwork".

In this thread we have self-identified Gardaí who are essentially complaining about others in the same way.

It's their job, it's the law and the Police have to enforce it, whether it's someone whose car tax is a few weeks out of date, is driving over the speed limit or the guy who is sent to prison for not paying the fine for recycling incorrectly at the bottle bank.

I'd be surprised if there are many Gardaí out there who have only ever used their time enforcing laws they have believed in.

Dont worry, there are plenty of jobs and roles Gardaí have that they believe are a complete and utter waste of time and resources.

Dealing with Speeders, tax and other road traffic offences IS the Role of Gardaí, Traffic Corps Gardaí more specifically but not exclusively . . . . . . .lodging persons in prisons on foot of commital warrants IS the role of Gardaí

. . .the point being made here was that the Army has its own MP's and people taught dealing with awol soilders should be their role . . . .leaving police free to do what ever, even if it is a road traffic checkpont. People were expressing their opinions that they believed this should NOT be the role of Police . . . .it seems in the US that it is, but hey, people are still entitled to their opinions


Obviously in the US the legislature etc believe differently. Also from the OP's examples it seems quite common for the Civil Power to call on the Military for assistance with day to day policing.

civdef

Section 251 of the Defence Forces Act, 1954 would be the similar provision in Irish legislation. Presumably not used often.

Corcioch

civdef wrote: »

Section 251 of the Defence Forces Act, 1954 would be the similar provision in Irish legislation. Presumably not used often.

Similar- ish . . .there is no Defence Forces Issued Warrant.


It states that Gardai can arrest desterters . . . . but no warrant, no command to arrest, the act says May Arrest. There is no command to arrest.


251.—(1) Where an officer or man or a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person is a deserter or an absentee, he may without warrant arrest such person and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
[GA]
( a ) such person (in this subsection referred to as the arrested person) may demand that an inquiry into his arrest be made under the next following paragraph, and the person making the arrest shall inform the arrested person of his right under this paragraph;
[GA]
( b ) if the arrested person so demands, then—
[GA]
(i) the arrested person shall be brought before a Justice of the District Court or a Peace Commissioner and may in the meantime be detained in any Garda Síochána station;
[GA]
(ii) the Justice of the District Court or the Peace Commissioner before whom the arrested person is brought shall inquire into the arrest, and
[GA]
(I) if satisfied that the arrested person is a deserter or an absentee, shall forthwith cause the arrested person to be delivered into service custody or, until he can be so delivered, to be committed to some prison or Garda Síochána station for such time as appears to him reasonably necessary for the taking of steps to receive the arrested person into service custody,
[GA]
(II) if not so satisfied, shall order the release of the arrested person;
[GA]
(iii) the Justice of the District Court or Peace Commissioner before whom the arrested person is brought may from time to time adjourn the inquiry, and, if he so does, shall order that the arrested person be detained, during any such adjournment, in a prison or a Garda Síochána station;
[GA]
( c ) if the arrested person does not so demand, the person making the arrest may deliver him into service custody and pending such delivery the arrested person may, on the requisition in writing of the person making the arrest, be detained in any prison or Garda Síochána station.
[GA]
(2) Where a person surrenders himself to an officer or man or a member of the Garda Síochána and alleges that he is a deserter or an absentee, such officer, man or member of the Garda Síochána may deliver such person into service custody and pending such delivery such person may, on the requisition in writing of such officer, man or member of the Garda Síochána, be detained in any prison or Garda Síochána station.


. . . . . . . .I tried to find a definition of "man" in the act . . .but couldn't, maybe I didn't look hard enough.

concussion

Defence Acts 1954 to 1998 and Courts Martial Appeals Act 1983 Restatement, page 31

"The word "man" means a person who is for the time being a member of the Defence Forces, but does not include an officer."

"the word ‘‘officer’’, when used without qualification, means a person who—
(a) holds a commissioned rank in, and is for the time being an officer of, the
Permanent Defence Force, or
(b) holds a commissioned rank in, and is for the time being an officer of, the Reserve
Defence Force;"

Without qualification means it refers to commissioned officers. Where 'non-commissioned' is placed in front it refers to

"non-commissioned officer.
the expression ‘‘non-commissioned officer’’ means a man holding—
(a) any non-commissioned army rank, other than that of private, or
(b) any non-commissioned naval rank, other than that of seaman;"

Where 'man' is written, it is understood to mean 'woman' aswel.

AlekSmart

And then I saw this . . . .and my next thought was . . . . .again . . . .Only in America, . . . . .would some complete lunatic do something like that.

Corcioch,who knows this dude may well have drawn his inspiration from the Provo`s "modifications" carried out to a truck used at Portlaoise many years ago now......:)

discus

Great story MM!

I'm suprised at some of the more level-headed regular posters getting in such a tizzy over a police force carrying out an arrest warrant.

Del2005

Manic Moran wrote: »

Mainly to express my surprise (and approval) at the flexibility that the police showed. I had expected to have to go through a whole bunch of "Give me your number and I'll have someone look into it and call you back" or "I need to call to get guidance from my supervisor, it may take a while as the Captain doesn't work weekends." Instead, I got two friendly dispatchers, plus a deputy and a sergeant, all of whom were a bit bemused, but more than willing to make decisions on the spot on their own. A trait I find unfortunately rare in government agencies, where if something is a little out of the ordinary, one can expect all sorts of pain and inflexibility, and a trait whose existence, or lack thereof I am unaware of the status of in the Irish organisations.

I was kindof hoping to prompt some form of 'you know, we got a bizarre request once, and this is how we dealt with it' responses.

NTM

Maybe this thread is showing you the willingness for flexibility in our Government agencies.

discus wrote: »

Great story MM!

I'm suprised at some of the more level-headed regular posters getting in such a tizzy over a police force carrying out an arrest warrant.

+1

As Manic Moran has already pointed out a reservist going AWOL in the US, which is at war, is taken much more seriously then going AWOL from our Reserve Defence Force.

Corcioch

Del2005 wrote: »

Maybe this thread is showing you the willingness for flexibility in our Government agencies.




+1

As Manic Moran has already pointed out a reservist going AWOL in the US, which is at war, is taken much more seriously then going AWOL from our Reserve Defence Force.

At War . . . .Lmao . . . . .


Is that what you call it??


Going into a country and taking it over by means of armed force . . . .based on a complete lie and fabricated evidence is not a war . . . its an illegal occupation.

Like what the English did here for centuries . . .we were illegally occupied/ colonised.


Nothing has really changed from that colonoial model to modern Iraq . . . .they are still at the same craic. Iraq will have a version of home rule by the time the US forces leave. A puppet Gov controlled by Washington.

Shield

I think it's safe to assume a thread is no longer ES-related when it deviates off into a discussion about American politics.

Thread closed.