Gardai acquitted....

CorkMan

According to RTE the scummer is serving 3 years ATM for stealing a Nun's car which ended up crashing into another car.

FFS.

I could go on about how he should have paid the spike in payments which the car owners would no doubt have to pay to their insurance company, which would never happen. Hopefully this is the way the Laws goes from now on. I imagine ya man must be the butt of jokes in prison.

sonic85

CorkMan wrote: »

According to RTE the scummer is serving 3 years ATM for stealing a Nun's car which ended up crashing into another car.

FFS.

I could go on about how he should have paid the spike in payments which the car owners would no doubt have to pay to their insurance company, which would never happen. Hopefully this is the way the Laws goes from now on. I imagine ya man must be the butt of jokes in prison.

hes getting something in his butt but i doubt its jokes

My name is URL

sonic85 wrote: »

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

You need to look within.

charlemont

The bloke bought it on himself, He was acting the big man and he got a beating for it, Those Guards were dead right, They were obviously pissed off about their fellow Guard being assaulted, It could have been worse, The Guards could have claimed he and his mother assaulted them in the house and the Guards could have brought them up for assault. I bet he is the kind of bloke that would call you or I a "Rat" if we brought him up for assault.

usernamegoes

CorkMan wrote: »

According to RTE the scummer is serving 3 years ATM for stealing a Nun's car which ended up crashing into another car.

FFS.

I could go on about how he should have paid the spike in payments which the car owners would no doubt have to pay to their insurance company, which would never happen. Hopefully this is the way the Laws goes from now on. I imagine ya man must be the butt of jokes in prison.

Exactly, wouldn't it have been much better if he was in prison, for the previous 30 convictions! The beating he got doesn't seem to have worked. Maybe if he did hit the garda the night before and was arrested, charged, and convicted then he might have been in jail and the Nuns' car would be safe.

As to if he would have gone to jail and why after 30 convictions he wasn't in jail, that's a different issue and one I am not going to defend.

JEINKINS12

the bolt wrote: »

no it does not it just means the jury found them not guilty

Yes it does mean they are innocent. When a trial starts the Judge tells the Jury that the accused are INNOCENT unless/until the Jury find them guilty i.e. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, they were not found guilty so they are innocent of the charges laid against them.So in your world you are not guilty but guilty at the same time ?

usernamegoes

JEINKINS12 wrote: »

Yes it does mean they are innocent. When a trial starts the Judge tells the Jury that the accused are INNOCENT unless/until the Jury find them guilty i.e. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, they were not found guilty so they are innocent of the charges laid against them.So in your world you are not guilty but guilty at the same time ?

This might sound like a bit of an academic distinction but it's worth making. They are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, if the verdict is not guilty then they are innocent however, that does not meanthe jury found a fact that they are innocent but rather there was not enough proof to prove guilt.

Does that make sense. I'll try phrase it better if not.

JEINKINS12

usernamegoes wrote: »

This might sound like a bit of an academic distinction but it's worth making. They are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, if the verdict is not guilty then they are innocent however, that does not meanthe jury found a fact that they are innocent but rather there was not enough proof to prove guilt.

Does that make sense. I'll try phrase it better if not.

There is no academic distinction to make, THEY ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, they were not found guilty and therefore are INNOCENT. The Jury never FIND anyone innocent, if the Jury do not find them guilty then they ARE innocent.Thats the way the system works, it may not be perfect and you may not like it but if the Jury does not find you guilty then you ARE innocent.

JEINKINS12

usernamegoes wrote: »

This might sound like a bit of an academic distinction but it's worth making. They are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, if the verdict is not guilty then they are innocent however, that does not meanthe jury found a fact that they are innocent but rather there was not enough proof to prove guilt.

Does that make sense. I'll try phrase it better if not.

The last line seems to imply they are not guilty but are guilty at the same time.....not enough proof to prove guilt.....did you ever consider that maybe there is not enough proof to prove guilt because they ARE not guilty?

end a eknny

sonic85 wrote: »

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

so its alright for the gardai to break the law just not alright for somebody with a working class background. or would it be alright for four people to call on these gardai now while they are in bed and beat fifty shades of sh1te out of them

MagicSean

end a eknny wrote: »

so its alright for the gardai to break the law just not alright for somebody with a working class background. or would it be alright for four people to call on these gardai now while they are in bed and beat fifty shades of sh1te out of them

According to the two trials they did not break the law.

end a eknny

JEINKINS12 wrote: »

Yes it does mean they are innocent. When a trial starts the Judge tells the Jury that the accused are INNOCENT unless/until the Jury find them guilty i.e. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, they were not found guilty so they are innocent of the charges laid against them.So in your world you are not guilty but guilty at the same time ?

and here was me thinking that being proven innocent may just mean that there isnt enough evidence to convict. if i killed my wife but there is not enough evidence to convict that doesnt mean i didnt do it. take joe o reilly for example he killed his wife but there wasnt enough evidence. hold on he might be a bad example. just thinking the only mistake he made was not joining the gardai 6 months before he killed her he would still be free now

end a eknny

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

According to the two trials they did not break the law.

of course they didnt

MagicSean

end a eknny wrote: »

of course they didnt

I take it you've viewed the court transcript (not the newspaper) and you disagree.

mconigol

Excellent judgement. The law doesn't deal adequately with low life scum like the supposed victim. Got what was coming to him and deserved it. That's justice in my opinion.

All the scumbag lovers can take a hike. Ordinary decent people are afraid to pass these degenerates on the streets. They don't get the same rights as the rest of us. You have to earn those rights.

Toby Take a Bow

JEINKINS12 wrote: »

The conspiracy theory starts here, the jury were nobbled (any evidence of this?), the judge mislead them (again any evidence?) Jury can be plain wrong, and who gets to decide on that?

Ahhh the newspaers, that bastion of impartial justice (phone hacking etc etc), the day the media get put in charge of despensing justice.....

I'm not sure if you were deliberately misquoting me, or if you forgot I was responding directly to your previous comment, which went a little something like this:

JEINKINS12 wrote: »

What law did they break, they are innocent until proven guilty, they wern't proven guilty, so they are innocent. That piece of law applies to all people, Gardaí included

Your comment that because someone is acquitted by a jury, thus they actually are innocent is ridiculous. They are viewed as innocent in the eyes of the law, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are actually innocent. Hence previous historical incidents of juries being corrupt and so forth.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just to add I don't believe the Gardai should have the authority to beat people willy nilly but anyone who hurts women or children does not deserve to be treated with any respect imo.

Is it just women and children here? Or would men be included in this?

end a eknny

mconigol wrote: »

Excellent judgement. The law doesn't deal adequately with low life scum like the supposed victim. Got what was coming to him and deserved it. That's justice in my opinion.

All the scumbag lovers can take a hike. Ordinary decent people are afraid to pass these degenerates on the streets. They don't get the same rights as the rest of us. You have to earn those rights.

i agree if the gardai ever come to my house i will lock the door and retreat upstairs with a loaded shotgun. you just cant let these scum go around making up there own laws

the bolt

lastlaugh wrote: »

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

and that is exactly the problem,who do you think deserves it?the fella that robs a bank with a shotgun or the bank maneger who fiddles more with the stroke of a pen?the fella with a killo of sniff or the estate agent that buys a few houses so he can hide the proffit?

Bosco boy

end a eknny wrote: »

mconigol wrote: »

Excellent judgement. The law doesn't deal adequately with low life scum like the supposed victim. Got what was coming to him and deserved it. That's justice in my opinion.

All the scumbag lovers can take a hike. Ordinary decent people are afraid to pass these degenerates on the streets. They don't get the same rights as the rest of us. You have to earn those rights.

i agree if the gardai ever come to my house i will lock the door and retreat upstairs with a loaded shotgun. you just cant let these scum go around making up there own laws

you are sooooooo full of sh1te!

tayto lover

end a eknny wrote: »

i agree if the gardai ever come to my house i will lock the door and retreat upstairs with a loaded shotgun. you just cant let these scum go around making up there own laws

You're bias continues to shine through like a beacon.
Come on, tell us what you were caught doing.

AudreyHepburn

The problem with this, or any case involving Gardai, is that people are blinding by irrational hatred of them and stubbornly refuse to let go of their prejudices no matter what.

When Gardai are in the dock, so to speak, it becomes a case of either 'guitly until proven innocent' or 'guilty regardless of verdict'.

And the very same people, like Eoin Gaffney, who treat them with such scorn and hatred expect the Gardai to treat them like royalty.

This fellow has 20-odd convictions to his name, he beat a woman, he's involved in drugs and gangs. You can't expect a handshake and congratulations for that sort of behaviour.

There is a certain section of society for whom violence is the only language they understand and if you treat people like that your forfeit the right to be treated with respect in my opinion.

Predalien

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There is a certain section of society for whom violence is the only language they understand and if you treat people like that your forfeit the right to be treated with respect in my opinion.

So in other words a justice system based on retribution and revenge rather than any form of rehabilitation or reformation? That's nonsense, would make things a million miles worse.

Oh and as for the case itself, the gardai were not found to be innocent, they were found not guilty, there's a big difference. I'd worry the verdict was an example of jury nullification, one of the biggest problems with jury trials.

Bosco boy

Predalien wrote: »

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There is a certain section of society for whom violence is the only language they understand and if you treat people like that your forfeit the right to be treated with respect in my opinion.

So in other words a justice system based on retribution and revenge rather than any form of rehabilitation or reformation? That's nonsense, would make things a million miles worse.

Oh and as for the case itself, the gardai were not found to be innocent, they were found not guilty, there's a big difference. I'd worry the verdict was an example of jury nullification, one of the biggest problems with jury trials.

innocent until proven guilty I thought!

Doublin

So a scumbag hits a Guard, they come back and beat him up as retribution. Does he now get his mates to shoot a couple of the Guards who attacked him as retribution. Then what, the Guards come back with guns and we have a Wild West type shootout on the streets.

Yep, sounds like justice to me, fight fire with fire, burn everything down.

Predalien

Bosco boy wrote: »

innocent until proven guilty I thought!

That's true but it's presumed innocent, a jury never proves someone innocent, they merely establish whether there is enough evidence to satisfy a finding of criminal guilt which has the very high threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. So for example even if members of the jury were say 80% sure someone was guilty they can't convict them as the 20% could constitute a reasonable doubt.

tayto lover

Doublin wrote: »

So a scumbag hits a Guard, they come back and beat him up as retribution. Does he now get his mates to shoot a couple of the Guards who attacked him as retribution. Then what, the Guards come back with guns and we have a Wild West type shootout on the streets.

Yep, sounds like justice to me, fight fire with fire, burn everything down.

If someone is found to be guilty they should be punished regardless of who they are. In this case the jury found them not guilty. The jury is impartial and each side i.e. defence and prosecution would have had the chance to object to any member of the jury before the trial commenced.
An eye for an eye never works and is never o.k.

0O7

Predalien wrote: »

That's true but it's presumed innocent, a jury never proves someone innocent, they merely establish whether there is enough evidence to satisfy a finding of criminal guilt which has the very high threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. So for example even if members of the jury were say 80% sure someone was guilty they can't convict them as the 20% could constitute a reasonable doubt.

Its not presumed innocent.... its innocent.

Alot of people are mixing this up, not guilty does not mean "presumed innocent"...
if you are not guilty, you are innocent in accordance with law, the news cant exactly say "he was found not guilty but probably still did it"

And alot of the people who dislike guards either cant take authority, are having their activities disrupted by gardai (as already suggested) or had a negative expierence with them.... or all 3

7Sins

Predalien wrote: »

So in other words a justice system based on retribution and revenge rather than any form of rehabilitation or reformation? That's nonsense, would make things a million miles worse.

Oh and as for the case itself, the gardai were not found to be innocent, they were found not guilty, there's a big difference. I'd worry the verdict was an example of jury nullification, one of the biggest problems with jury trials.

I can't believe people don't understand the simple notion of being proven not guilty means innocent

RichieC

mconigol wrote: »

Excellent judgement. The law doesn't deal adequately with low life scum like the supposed victim. Got what was coming to him and deserved it. That's justice in my opinion.

All the scumbag lovers can take a hike. Ordinary decent people are afraid to pass these degenerates on the streets. They don't get the same rights as the rest of us. You have to earn those rights.

one law for us another for scum, yay! maybe we can even make it slide further so union workers and socialists can get the scum law applied to them!

I really want to live in a state like that.

arybvtcw0eolkf

This;

Chief--- wrote: »

Great news,

Didn't see the news but...

Well at least it's over now, 12 unbiased members of the public who knew the full facts of the case (unlike some armchair prosecutors here) have found the gardai innocent of all charges.

And a LOT of this

usernamegoes wrote: »

Really, was amazing how the jury decided this. All I can see is that the jury decided that the victims deserved it.

God be with the days a scumbag took his beating and straightened himself/herself out - bleed'n cry baby IMO.

Little pox bottle;

Mr Gaffney who is currently serving a three year sentence for stealing a car which crashed into another car