Garda convicted of attempted armed robbery.

man.about.town

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

For starters, no one believes we're all equal. That's pious nonsense akin to fairy tales. Why are you misquoting me. I said he was a member,m you said he wasn't and I corrected you! It doesn't matter, a crooked cop is worse than a common criminal and yes I believe it should be taken into account. A drink 'illness' is no excuse. Should a Postman be treated differently to a Garda before the court? If the charge is serious as attempted robbery? Absolutely yes! A Gard is trained to defend the law and any breaches should be more sewverely punished. Also why if ill was the person AWOL for 5 months? Paid or not?

I have of course sympathy for anyone suffering any illness, but canot see much mitigation in this case.

Tabloid sensationalism? That's crap, smacks more of poor handling and IMO lenient sentencing.

actually as a judge said to the jury in the robbie mccallion case, "Don’t be carried away by the fact that he was a garda".... so it goes both ways really

heres the link : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0205/1224289076039.html

Sonnenblumen

letsbehonest wrote: »

If you actually read it it says he wasn't serving in the force for over five months at the time of the incident. This shows us that the man was taking time off work at the time because he knew he had a problem.
Back to reading class for you!:D

"A garda with a chronic drink problem who lost his job after attempting to rob a shop with an imitation firearm has been given a three-year suspended jail term."

and it goes on...........

"Det Sgt Treacy agreed with defence barrister, Donal O'Sullivan, BL, that the robbery was an act of desperation and Boersma had now lost everything including his job in the gardaí."


Here's the link, perhaps you've a different version?
:pac:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0304/boersmam.html

letsbehonest

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

For starters, no one believes we're all equal. That's pious nonsense akin to fairy tales. Why are you misquoting me. I said he was a member,m you said he wasn't and I corrected you! It doesn't matter, a crooked cop is worse than a common criminal and yes I believe it should be taken into account. A drink 'illness' is no excuse. Should a Postman be treated differently to a Garda before the court? If the charge is serious as attempted robbery? Absolutely yes! A Gard is trained to defend the law and any breaches should be more sewverely punished. Also why if ill was the person AWOL for 5 months? Paid or not?

I have of course sympathy for anyone suffering any illness, but canot see much mitigation in this case.

Tabloid sensationalism? That's crap, smacks more of poor handling and IMO lenient sentencing.

You don't know what basic human rights are!

letsbehonest

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

"A garda with a chronic drink problem who lost his job after attempting to rob a shop with an imitation firearm has been given a three-year suspended jail term."

and it goes on...........

"Det Sgt Treacy agreed with defence barrister, Donal O'Sullivan, BL, that the robbery was an act of desperation and Boersma had now lost everything including his job in the gardaí."


Here's the link, perhaps you've a different version?
:pac:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0304/boersmam.html

The point that a lot of here are trying to make to is that he wasn't serving in the Gardai at time of the incident. We are not saying he had his job lost then but he wasn't working in the Gardai at the time.

geeky

I think the victim impact statement from the shopkeeper - saying how she bore him no ill-feeling and didn't think a jail sentence was the right way to go - is worth noting if we're looking at how lenient the sentence seems.

The woman deserves credit for having a genuinely unselfish attitude to the incident, not sure I'd be as charitable.

man.about.town

geeky wrote: »

I think the victim impact statement from the shopkeeper - saying how she bore him no ill-feeling and didn't think a jail sentence was the right way to go - is worth noting if we're looking at how lenient the sentence seems.

The woman deserves credit for having a genuinely unselfish attitude to the incident, not sure I'd be as charitable.

a very important point

Sonnenblumen

letsbehonest wrote: »

You don't know what basic human rights are!

Which rights would they be?

The Shopowner's rights to carry on a legitimate business in a responsible and safe way and not be threatened with a firearm?

Or, an employee's right to a safe work environment and not be threatened by an armed robber ?

Or the citizen's rights to go about their daily lives in a safe community free from armed robbers?

Or the rights of taxpayers to safe and responsive delivery of services by all public servants?

Dyr

geeky wrote: »

I think the victim impact statement from the shopkeeper - saying how she bore him no ill-feeling and didn't think a jail sentence was the right way to go - is worth noting if we're looking at how lenient the sentence seems.

The woman deserves credit for having a genuinely unselfish attitude to the incident, not sure I'd be as charitable.

Saying how she'd rather not get on the wrong side of the biggest gang in the country more like

J K

Sonnenblu you're quoting a second hand source. Increasing the font doesn't change the fact that it's just the understanding of a journalist of the situation. Their view could be as biased or inaccurate as yours.

If the guy was long since off the payrole and hadn't showed up to work in over half a year you could say he was defacto out of a job. The legal formalities of dismissing him take longer.

This guy got the usual. From the courts. No better no worse. Which is about right. Why should he get worse because some people like you hate cops

A suspended sentence is standard course in this country for first time offenders, where judge also considers a person has suffered by screwing their life and loosing their home, income and marriage. This is the standard applied every day in every court in the country. Go visit your local politician if you want to change the laws of the country.

letsbehonest

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Which rights would they be?

The Shopowner's rights to carry on a legitimate business in a responsible and safe way and not be threatened with a firearm?

Or, an employee's right to a safe work environment and not be threatened by an armed robber ?

Or the citizen's rights to go about their daily lives in a safe community free from armed robbers?

Or the rights of taxpayers to safe and responsive delivery of services by all public servants?

You need to brush up on these!
List of human rights

Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:
Right to live, exist.
Right to have a family
To work for anyone
To own property
Free Speech
Social Security
Safety from violence
Protection from the law
Equality of both sex and women's rights
Fair trial
To be innocent until proven guilty
To be a citizen of a country
The right to express his sexual orientation
To keep own's own gender identity and rights to have or not to have a surgery
To vote
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly
To think freely
To believe and practice the religion a person wants
To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
Health care (medical care)
Education
Eat/drink
To communicate through a language
Not be forced into marriage
To pursue happiness
Not to be forced to do something you do not wish to do

MagicSean

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Or the rights of taxpayers to safe and responsive delivery of services by all public servants?

Seriously?

Sonnenblumen

J K wrote: »

Sonnenblu you're quoting a second hand source. Increasing the font doesn't change the fact that it's just the understanding of a journalist of the situation. Their view could be as biased or inaccurate as yours.

If the guy was long since off the payrole and hadn't showed up to work in over half a year you could say he was defacto out of a job. The legal formalities of dismissing him take longer.

This guy got the usual. From the courts. No better no worse. Which is about right. Why should he get worse because some people like you hate cops

A suspended sentence is standard course in this country for first time offenders, where judge also considers a person has suffered by screwing their life and loosing their home, income and marriage. This is the standard applied every day in every court in the country. Go visit your local politician if you want to change the laws of the country.

Where did I say "I hate cops". Why are you deliberately misquoting? The fact is I do support the Gardai, but when a member digresses and comes before the court on serious charges, I would be much more disappointed if he/she is found guilty and less tolerant of weak mitigating circumstances.

There are a lot of people throughout Ireland whose lives are being screwed, some have lost their marriage and/or home BUT they haven't committed any crime!!

I'm sorry I've little sympathy for any well paid Public servant who for whatever reason has a drink problem and consequently has ended up on hard times.

My last point on this is there should be less tolerance of any serious crime committed by "people with drink issues" and 'wilting lily' supporters smack of Gombeenism.

MagicSean

After 5 months awol and unpaid I doubt you could call him well paid. And you have no idea what he went through that led to his drink problem. He could have easily suffered a trauma which he didn't recover from.

J K

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

I would be much more disappointed if he/she is found guilty and less tolerant of weak mitigating circumstances.

You seem to think that some special circumstances were applied here.
They weren't. He got the standard. Your level of disappointment is irrelevant, either everyone gets a long mandatory sentence for any conviction including the first or nobody should. Why treat people differently.

Sparks

Hunter Mahan wrote: »

I can only hope that for your sake that you or anyone close to you never hits rock bottom, because you are in for a rude awakening..

I'd agree with you...
...if it wasn't for the fact that not long ago, every civilian with a firearms licence was being defamed in the media by the Gardai (via the Commissioner, who, granted, is about a hundred pay grades above where this guy was before he went AWOL), and huge tracts of the entire Firearms Act got rewritten for the second time in three years to crack down on the "growing handgun culture".

So frankly, when I see a case like this, I remember that I had to give up my medical confidentiality, my right to privacy, my right not to be searched at random without cause or warrant, and a dozen other things to get a licence for an Olympic air rifle; but this chap can commit an act of assault (and the law doesn't care it was an airsoft, it only cares about what the person it was pointed at thought it was at the time - so he might as well have used a real firearm) and get such a lenient sentence.

It does not sit well. How can firearms be so dangerous one week that Senators and TDs and Ministers and Garda Commissioners and High Court Judges are saying that they're a serious risk, that firearms owners should be spoken of in the same breath and without distinction from drug dealers and criminals, that legitimate licenced firearm owners -- who are all signed off on personally by Garda Superintendents and Chief Superintendents as safe, stable people who can own firearms -- are publicly stated to be one bad day away from walking into a school playground and opening fire on children --- and then then next week, we're letting off people who commit armed robbery like this with lenient sentences?

It's either one way or the other, it can't be both...