Gardai acquitted....

sonic85

archer22 wrote: »

Or maybe they were afraid that they might wake up some night to find a group of thugs in their bedrooms swinging batons or afraid their tax nct and tyres might be checked every day from now on.

BULL of the higest order. 99% of gardai are good people just trying to do their (hard) job. like somebody said above ordinary law abiding people have nothing to fear from the gardai. stop talking sh!te

the bolt

wicklowstevo wrote: »

isnt this the second time this trial was held ? so these four gardai have been tried twice and found not guilty,mabey they didnt do anything wrong ,unless some one who was there comes on here and gives the facts you will never know , and theres no point saying that gaffneys told the truth because they were both caught lying a few times , why was the first trial thrown out again ?? didnt he lie?
the talk from the violence is wrong no matter what gang, well thats not realistic is it?, this guy was and still is a violent criminal he does not respond to polite conversation, legaly you can enter a house if invited of if going to attempt to arrest some one for some things, obviously thats what the jury thought, as for crying jurys , seen it loads of times in cases varying from assaults to roadtraffic to sexual cases, remmber the jury pool that was used in this case was drawn from the north inner city, unlikley to be many garda lovers , more likley people sick and tired of criminals behaving as they want without reproach?

care to enlighten us but what did the gaffneys lie about?

murrayp4

RichieC wrote: »

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I dunno....the Coastguard?

archer22

sonic85 wrote: »

BULL of the higest order. 99% of gardai are good people just trying to do their (hard) job. like somebody said above ordinary law abiding people have nothing to fear from the gardai. stop talking sh!te

At least you admit that 1% of them are no good...thats a start I suppose

the bolt

archer22 wrote: »

And if we did batter them the Gardai would arrest us :rolleyes:

or they could just batter you in your bed,saves time money etc,everyones a winner:rolleyes:

sonic85

archer22 wrote: »

At least you admit that 1% of them are no good...thats a start I suppose

ah yeah but youll meet rotten people in every walk of life!

generalmental

Richard tea wrote: »

Not aware of the case but I agree. sometimes scumbags get away with crime as do some members of the force

The scumbg in the street or the scumbag on the force

the bolt

Mr Jinx wrote: »

Better than a jury being like the "all guards are pricks" brigade here.

you must be reading a different thread than me because i would hate to have most of the people on here on jury duty if i was in the box

archer22

sonic85 wrote: »

ah yeah but youll meet rotten people in every walk of life!

so if we take your probably extremely conservative 1% that would come to around 140 individuals...thats bigger than most of major criminal gangs in the country :eek:.

sonic85

archer22 wrote: »

so if we take your probably extremely conservative 1% that would come to around 140 individuals...thats bigger than most of major criminal gangs in the country :eek:.

really? so you know each of the gang members individually do you? how do you know how big irish gangs are? anyway.............OFF TOPIC ALERT!

archer22

sonic85 wrote: »

really? so you know each of the gang members individually do you? how do you know how big irish gangs are? anyway.............OFF TOPIC ALERT!

only going on the Garda estimates..including the 1% from you.So by the same logic you know the 140 rotten guards

sonic85

archer22 wrote: »

only going on the Garda estimates..including the 1% from you.

to be honest i pulled that 1% out of my hole - it could be less

generalmental

sonic85 wrote: »

BULL of the higest order. 99% of gardai are good people just trying to do their (hard) job. like somebody said above ordinary law abiding people have nothing to fear from the gardai. stop talking sh!te

Sorry sonic bu thats bollox 99% way to high a number, not saying they are all bad cause they are not but i have seen some stuff make your hair stand on end.

SOME of them are the biggest gangsters going.

archer22

sonic85 wrote: »

to be honest i pulled that 1% out of my hole - it could be less

or it could be more...depends on the size of your hole perhaps

sonic85

archer22 wrote: »

only going on the Garda estimates..including the 1% from you.So by the same logic you know the 140 rotten guards

youre only going on my estimate which i basically pulled out of my hole. it could be less than 1%! i dont know any rotten guards just like you dont know how many gang members there are in ireland!

sonic85

archer22 wrote: »

or it could be more...depends on the size of your hole perhaps

perhaps but my hole is pretty small to be honest

the bolt

sonic85 wrote: »

to be honest i pulled that 1% out of my hole - it could be less

or a lot more

tb66

Since the gardai did "nothing wrong" does that mean the civil case being persued is now pointless and the state will not have to fork out any compo!!!

archer22

antob wrote: »

Since the gardai did "nothing wrong" does that mean the civil case being persued is now pointless and the state will not have to fork out any compo!!!

probably have to pay it to the Guards now :rolleyes:

end a eknny

0O7 wrote: »

alot of people thought they would be found guilty

a lot of people thought they where guilty, then alot of people think the gardai can do no wrong

Potential-Monke

Oh you'll always have people on one side and people on the other.

People have to remember, that the 4 Gardai were tried in front of a jury of 12 of their peers*. This jury are told to not let personal feelings and media hype have an impact on their decision. Feelings may still be considered, media may be believed, but this jury was selected in the legal traditions of many many years. This jury found them not guilty (which, while it doesn't specifically mean innocent, it means the presumption of innocence). So, as far as the legal system is concerned, it did not happen. End of.

Now, i would like those people who believe the jury made the wrong decision to do something. I would love for ye to go to court, each day for a month, and count how many criminals get off on charges. Do it. But bring a notepad and a calculator, you'll need them.

Link 1 Link 2

These verdicts happen on a daily basis, and there are more and more criminals getting off on technicalities it's astonishing. Just because 1 case against Gardai resulted in a not guilty verdict, does not mean all cases against Gardai end in not guilty.

Link 1 Link 2

The reason people over-react to a ruling like this is because the Gardai are not in court every day answering to charges, unlike criminals. The fact that the Gardai are not in court very often speaks volumes in itself. And there are bad apples in every job. But these 4 Gardai cannot be labelled with that, because they have been found not guilty.

Everyone can say "but, ya, you know, it did happen, we just know it did". Obviously there was not enough proof to, and in the words of the law, "prove beyond reasonable doubt", and there's the clincher, criminal law dictates that it has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt", so if there's so much as a doubt as to the happenings as put forward by the prosecution, then they have to rule not guilty. The judge says this at the end of every criminal case before charging a jury. End of.

archer22 wrote: »

probably have to pay it to the Guards now :rolleyes:

They will be entitled to loss of earnings. Just like any person who has lost earnings due to suspension while awaiting the outcome of a case. Public and non-public.

end a eknny

sonic85 wrote: »

youre only going on my estimate which i basically pulled out of my hole. it could be less than 1%! i dont know any rotten guards just like you dont know how many gang members there are in ireland!

depends what you call rotten gardai. realistically i only know a handful of gardai well enough to comment. one whom i dont know a whole lota about was thick as a plank, one admitted to me to being involved in a hit and run (before joiniing) in his fathers car (also a gardai) and the other was intelligent but also a thieve so i can safely say 100% of the gardai i know shouldnt be gardai

end a eknny

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Oh you'll always have people on one side and people on the other.

People have to remember, that the 4 Gardai were tried in front of a jury of 12 of their peers*. This jury are told to not let personal feelings and media hype have an impact on their decision. Feelings may still be considered, media may be believed, but this jury was selected in the legal traditions of many many years. This jury found them not guilty (which, while it doesn't specifically mean innocent, it means the presumption of innocence). So, as far as the legal system is concerned, it did not happen. End of.

Now, i would like those people who believe the jury made the wrong decision to do something. I would love for ye to go to court, each day for a month, and count how many criminals get off on charges. Do it. But bring a notepad and a calculator, you'll need them.

Link 1 Link 2

These verdicts happen on a daily basis, and there are more and more criminals getting off on technicalities it's astonishing. Just because 1 case against Gardai resulted in a not guilty verdict, does not mean all cases against Gardai end in not guilty.

Link 1 Link 2

The reason people over-react to a ruling like this is because the Gardai are not in court every day answering to charges, unlike criminals. The fact that the Gardai are not in court very often speaks volumes in itself. And there are bad apples in every job. But these 4 Gardai cannot be labelled with that, because they have been found not guilty.

Everyone can say "but, ya, you know, it did happen, we just know it did". Obviously there was not enough proof to, and in the words of the law, "prove beyond reasonable doubt", and there's the clincher, criminal law dictates that it has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt", so if there's so much as a doubt as to the happenings as put forward by the prosecution, then they have to rule not guilty. The judge says this at the end of every criminal case before charging a jury. End of.

there was another one today in waterford

goat2

end a eknny wrote: »

a lot of people thought they where guilty, then alot of people think the gardai can do no wrong

from what i read about the lot and reading on here, it was only right that the case went the way it did, i am happy for those young garda, they can get on with their lives, and serve and protect.

Potential-Monke

end a eknny wrote: »

there was another one today in waterford

Another which? I'm tired and may not be picking up on something...

Oh, and to answer someone a few pages back about why very few people get convicted for assaults on Gardai, if the defence can prove that the person acted in the way they did, that is to say assaulting a Garda, they can get off because "they would not have acted in that way had the Gardai not attempted to arrest them/move them off/get their details/(whatever reason they were talking to the person in the first place)". Assaults are common on Gardai, i'm trying to find the fact but i think it's something like 8 a day, but there are very few people convicted of it.

A mate of mine arrested someone recently, and by all accounts this person who was arrested was like a rabid dog, and bit my mate on his leg and spat blood at him. My mate now cannot kiss his girlfriend, have "relations" and has to be careful about meals and drinks, for a period of 6 months. Hopefully he will be clear. But you never hear of this in the media...

end a eknny

goat2 wrote: »

from what i read about the lot and reading on here, it was only right that the case went the way it did, i am happy for those young garda, they can get on with their lives, and serve and protect.

a recent case in dundalk court. four gardai assaulted a man on his own and break his arm. where the gardai on trial no.this is what the court heard the gardai stop a man on his own with a can of drink they take it off him and tell him to go home he turns and walks away mutters **** you the gardai arrest him he resists and ends up with a broken arm and he is charged with threathing behaviour as long as the gardai is made up of thickos and thugs and they know that they have free reign to do as they please no young white male or female from certain areas are safe. i say white as they would be afraid to do the same to a coloured person for fear of the old race card going against them

Potential-Monke

end a eknny wrote: »

a recent case in dundalk court. four gardai assaulted a man on his own and break his arm. where the gardai on trial no.this is what the court heard the gardai stop a man on his own with a can of drink they take it off him and tell him to go home he turns and walks away mutters **** you the gardai arrest him he resists and ends up with a broken arm and he is charged with threathing behaviour as long as the gardai is made up of thickos and thugs and they know that they have free reign to do as they please no young white male or female from certain areas are safe. i say white as they would be afraid to do the same to a coloured person for fear of the old race card going against them

A: Learn about punctuation, and use it. I barely took a long enough breath to read that.

B: So, yet again, the actions of 4 Gardai represent the actions of 13,500 Gardai? And even though there would be a case, has this person who had his arm broken unlawfully brought a case against them? No? Wonder why that is... Proof please or gtfo.

the bolt

goat2 wrote: »

from what i read about the lot and reading on here, it was only right that the case went the way it did, i am happy for those young garda, they can get on with their lives, and serve and protect.

and batter the ****e out of someone else knowing they will more than likely get off if the posters on here were on jury duty

lastlaugh

the bolt wrote: »

and batter the ****e out of someone else knowing they will more than likely get off if the posters on here were on jury duty

I'd be happy enough to aquit someone if they battered the ****e out of someone if I thought there was justification for it.

sonic85

the bolt wrote: »

and batter the ****e out of someone else knowing they will more than likely get off if the posters on here were on jury duty

are you after breaking the law? no? then you should have nothing to worry about. if they batter the sh!te out of an innocent person then b!tch away. the mans a criminal and he wasnt killed just roughed up. i still fail to see a problem