Judge appalled at video of Gardai

RustyNut

croker1 wrote: »

The guy probably deserved it tbh! I'm pretty sure he wasn't as innocent as a lot of people are making him out to be

Big assumption on your part.

croker1 wrote: »

Bouncers wouldn't call the guards for nothing! He was obviously being a scumbag in the first place.

No evidence he broke any law or was a " scumbag" of any nature, another assumption on your part.

Just because the video cuts in at a time which favours the 'victim' doesn't mean he was completely innocent

When exactly did the video cut in?

croker1 wrote: »

BUT it would have never happened if the man in question hadn't been acting the gowl in the first place.

Another Baseless assumption on your part.

croker1 wrote: »

Because my point was that the man in question was not set upon by the guards for no reason. He was causing enough trouble for the bouncers to call the guards in the first place. The way people were talking about him in this thread you would think the guards spotted him across the road and thought "He looks like the perfect lad to kick the **** out of"

This It would appear from the evidence this is exactly what happened and the judge who heard all the evidence thought this also.

SocSocPol

croker1 wrote: »

Yes i did read the article before i posted???
I asked the question why were the guards called in the first place and judging by everyones responses you would swear the guards were called for someone petting a puppy too hard!

Stop being so nieve. I have been to mollies on numerous occasions, I have also been fcuked out of mollies. I have also gotten mad at the bouncers for doing so. But I have never got the guards called on me

PJ Stone, is that you PJ, go on now admit it is isn't it,:D

Laneyh

yore wrote: »

We know at least that the second part of that claim is untrue. We also know that there was "no interaction" between the guards and the fella who got his arm broken. I see nothing in the story to suggest that the broken arm fella was a reason that the Guards were called.

The presented evidence is:
1) Guards called to a disturbance
2) Nearby drunk lad starts filming the guards on his phone without interacting with the guards at all
3) Guard asks him for ID, and when it is produced, assaults him

Some more quotes from that article,

1) about the video, directed towards the guard:


2) A far more sinister statement



This happened in Limerick. Isn't it nice to see all the really brave guards down there. They are well able to act as judge and jury and administer their own justice to drunk onlookers playing with camera phones.... Funny that they don't seem to be as brave, or as quick to dish out summary justice when they enter Ballinacurra Weston or similar!

To anyone supporting the guard, that fella with the phone could have been anyone. There was no interaction with the guards. So as far as they knew, he could have been friends with the fellas causing trouble, or he could have been a random passer by. So the same could happen to you if you are walking by some trouble and take out your phone. You see some trouble, take out your phone to record it, get assaulted and your arm broken and taken to court with a realistic threat of getting a bogus criminal conviction

How much better a society would we be if when you see some trouble your first instinct is not to record it but to offer assistance to the Gardai ?
The guy has already has his case thrown out of court and the Gardai involved have been called to task
If there are numerous instances of this happening then perhaps there is a case for Garda training on restraint methods to be reviewed. I wouldn't fancy their job of going into a hostile environment and trying to take control of a volatile situation where some idiot shoving a camera in my face would just make my job that bit harder.
They need to keep a cool head in such situations and certainly breaking someone's arm is not the ideal result but if they perceived him as a threat they were going to do whatever it took at the time to neutralise the threat.

In this case it would seem they used excessive force but its not like they just turned up throwing punches and asking questions after.
I guess in future they will just come to rely more and more on pepper spray.. I don't fancy anyone's chances of videoing with burning eyeballs

SocSocPol

Laneyh wrote: »

How much better a society would we be if when you see some trouble your first instinct is not to record it but to offer assistance to the Gardai ?
The guy has already has his case thrown out of court and the Gardai involved have been called to task
If there are numerous instances of this happening then perhaps there is a case for Garda training on restraint methods to be reviewed. I wouldn't fancy their job of going into a hostile environment and trying to take control of a volatile situation where some idiot shoving a camera in my face would just make my job that bit harder.
They need to keep a cool head in such situations and certainly breaking someone's arm is not the ideal result but if they perceived him as a threat they were going to do whatever it took at the time to neutralise the threat.

In this case it would seem they used excessive force but its not like they just turned up throwing punches and asking questions after.
I guess in future they will just come to rely more and more on pepper spray.. I don't fancy anyone's chances of videoing with burning eyeballs

Eh evidence suggests that in fact that is exactly what they did, worse still they then conspired with each other to pervert the course of Justice by attempting to have him wrongly convicted on false evidence. I dont see anywhere how they have yet, as you put it, been brought to task.

AEDIC

Laneyh wrote: »

How much better a society would we be if when you see some trouble your first instinct is not to record it but to offer assistance to the Gardai ?
The guy has already has his case thrown out of court and the Gardai involved have been called to task
If there are numerous instances of this happening then perhaps there is a case for Garda training on restraint methods to be reviewed. I wouldn't fancy their job of going into a hostile environment and trying to take control of a volatile situation where some idiot shoving a camera in my face would just make my job that bit harder.
They need to keep a cool head in such situations and certainly breaking someone's arm is not the ideal result but if they perceived him as a threat they were going to do whatever it took at the time to neutralise the threat.

In this case it would seem they used excessive force but its not like they just turned up throwing punches and asking questions after.
I guess in future they will just come to rely more and more on pepper spray.. I don't fancy any innocent person's chances of videoing with burning eyeballs

fyp

Paparazzo

yore wrote: »

We know at least that the second part of that claim is untrue. We also know that there was "no interaction" between the guards and the fella who got his arm broken. I see nothing in the story to suggest that the broken arm fella was a reason that the Guards were called.

The presented evidence is:
1) Guards called to a disturbance
2) Nearby drunk lad starts filming the guards on his phone without interacting with the guards at all
3) Guard asks him for ID, and when it is produced, assaults him

Some more quotes from that article,

1) about the video, directed towards the guard:


2) A far more sinister statement



This happened in Limerick. Isn't it nice to see all the really brave guards down there. They are well able to act as judge and jury and administer their own justice to drunk onlookers playing with camera phones.... Funny that they don't seem to be as brave, or as quick to dish out summary justice when they enter Ballinacurra Weston or similar!

To anyone supporting the guard, that fella with the phone could have been anyone. There was no interaction with the guards. So as far as they knew, he could have been friends with the fellas causing trouble, or he could have been a random passer by. So the same could happen to you if you are walking by some trouble and take out your phone. You see some trouble, take out your phone to record it, get assaulted and your arm broken and taken to court with a realistic threat of getting a bogus criminal conviction

Good post. It's mad that people on here are actually inventing their own evidence, ignoring real evidence, ignoring the fact that the guards lied in court and excuse a guy getting his arm broken because the guards must be right.
Must have been a similar situation in 30's germany

(Yeah, I know)

coolhandluke

Sleepy wrote: »

And if cops weren't afraid to use physical force to apprehend violent thugs in case they lose their jobs over it, do you think the Swedish House Mafia gig would have gotten out of control?

An unarmed police force will only be as effective as the respect it can gain from all members of society. When the criminal classes have no fear of the police force, what hope have they of protecting the rest of us?

Bingo...........cause and effect. But lets have another 66 page thread anyway, one about the gardai doing **** all, the other about them whacking some lad.

Laneyh

AEDIC wrote: »

fyp

We won't know if they're innocent or not being that the default stance of the Gardai may be to pepper spray them.

If we are going to judge all gardai by the actions of a few then they may well adopt the same attitude towards the general public

AEDIC

Laneyh wrote: »

We won't know if they're innocent or not being that the default stance of the Gardai may be to pepper spray them.

If we are going to judge all gardai by the actions of a few then they may well adopt the same attitude towards the general public

Silly comment imho, however..

Unless I am mistaken, this thread is talking about the actions of two specific gardai, perhaps you are a little confused due to you not actually reading the article maybe?

Laneyh

SocSocPol wrote: »

Eh evidence suggests that in fact that is exactly what they did, worse still they then conspired with each other to pervert the course of Justice by attempting to have him wrongly convicted on false evidence. I dont see anywhere how they have yet, as you put it, been brought to task.

The only evidence I have to go on is the article, which says that one of the guards spoke to a bouncer for a minute and a half.
We can't see the footage or hear what may have been said so I don't know the reason why the guard would have pushed the guy. It doesn't seem like they got out of the squad car and cracked the first few available heads.. so there was some exchange of some sort the details of which we are not privy to.

Yes, I concede it does not show they've been taken to task but they have been named and shamed in the article..presumably the victim could take a case against them if he wished.

I'm not really on either party's side here to be honest
Its one thing filming say a protest rally or the gardai making an arrest but what was this guy hoping to achieve ?

I was at Smithfield Horse Market a few months back and photographed an exchange between the gardai and the traders. I also photographed the infamous photos of the horse getting intimate with the guard
There was a guy videoing there too - of the many gardai there none of them attacked any of us or tried to confiscate the footage. They were not breaking the law then so perhaps that fuels the argument that they objected to this guy filming because they were doing something they shouldn't.

Absolutely they shouldn't have lied to cover their own arses but this is a problem that is pervasive within all levels of Irish society.
The OP is lumping all gardai in together or implying that this is their institutional stance - 'film us and we'll batter you'. I don't believe that to be accurate

Scioch

oddman2 wrote: »

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't condemn stuff like this when it happens.

It means you shouldnt condemn the entire service. If a teacher hits a kid there is no public outcry about how teachers are thugs and scum. Why is it always different for the Gardai ?

Laneyh

AEDIC wrote: »

Silly comment imho, however..

Unless I am mistaken, this thread is talking about the actions of two specific gardai, perhaps you are a little confused due to you not actually reading the article maybe?

I read the article and it didn't cause any confusion thanks.
It is about a specific case and specific garda's actions but further in the thread other cases were cited that mentioned gardai using force towards people filming them.

Ok, if the gardai were using undue force in the arrest of his friend.. this man was entitled to film that and should be able to do so without reprisal.
Perhaps the mention of pepper spray was a bit silly but honestly if they feel threatened by someone filming / shouting at them whatever I can't see them doing nothing about it.

Scioch

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Some of the people they deal with not all! :rolleyes:
They would do well to remember that.
You are turning this into a Garda V's the People war while you accuse the OP of doing the same.

The OP started the thread by accusing the Gardai as a whole of behaving in this way. I'm disagreeing with him so how the hell can I be of the same opinion ??

How am I turning it into the people vs Gardai by arguing that you cant denounce all Gardai because of the actions of a couple ?

yore

Laneyh wrote: »

How much better a society would we be if when you see some trouble your first instinct is not to record it but to offer assistance to the Gardai ?

Help them do what exactly? Start throwing random digs at anyone you see a Guard throwing a dig at? Nowhere does it suggest that the Guards were under pressure or in trouble. In fact, the one who committed the assault had enough time to go over and ask the injured party for ID. It doesn't seem like he was struggling to hold down and arrest a gang of violent thugs at the time.
I would also imagine that videoing it would actually be of assistance. If I were walking down the street and some randomer decided to assault me or punch me, I'd be happy to find out that someone had happened to video it. Videoing incidents is actually of great help to getting justice....in fact it can also be used to exonerate people from false accusations and prevent them from getting bogus convictions....it can even from false accusations made the Guards.....if only I had some evidence of such a story....
Your argument, while maybe sounding great on first glance, makes no sense. It's a bit like starting your argument saying "how much better global society would be if there was no starving babies".

staker

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, but thankfully imagination isn't something that counts as evidence in a court. This diagram helpfully explains it.
http://www.blackandwhitecat.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/dreams.gif

If you can't argue your point without resorting to the childish insinuations don't bother.
I never condoned the Garda actions in breaking the man's arm,nor never would but as another poster alluded to, why was it his first reaction to video the proceedings instead of standing in to help or ignoring the whole lot?

MagicSean

Just to clarify some things. There are cases when a Garda can prevent you from filming. These would be limited in most cases to incidents were your filming is contributing to a breach of the peace. A simple example would be if the Gardaí were dealing with two people who had been fighting and one of them was getting very aggravated by you filming them.

What you should be aware of if filming the Gardaí arresting someone is that they may (and, in fact, should) seize your phone as the footage would be classed as evidence which the defence would be entitled to in any court proceedings.

Dr Turk Turkelton

How will these Guuards evidence in court ever be taken seriously again after they have been proved to have lied under oath?

I'm only asking the question as I'm sure any defense soliciter would be failing in their duties to their client by not bringing this up any time these Guards give evidence?

Nodin

staker wrote: »

If you can't argue your point without resorting to the childish insinuations don't bother.
I never condoned the Garda actions in breaking the man's arm,nor never would but as another poster alluded to, why was it his first reaction to video the proceedings instead of standing in to help or ignoring the whole lot?

It doesn't matter why he was videoing anything, because thats not a crime. There was no situation to "help" with, and so why would he. In addition

And it demonstrated that Garda O’Connor spoke to the doormen for a minute and a half after arriving at the scene. Addressing Garda O’Connor, Mr Twomey said; “it shows that you then went to my client; asked him for ID, which he produced as the footage shows; and then 30 seconds later, you push him - violently”.

“It shows that over the course of 100 seconds, you pushed, slapped or dragged people on nine separate occasions and that the only person who was agitated was you; that you arrived and the violence started. And when my client did something small like take video footage, you broke his arm, although I accept probably not deliberately,” Mr Twomey said.

While the gardai had initially indicated the matter could be dealt with by way of adult caution, it was Mr Daly’s “decision to make a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman that his arm had been broken without reason” that led to him being charged with the offence. Gareth Howard had never been charged, Mr Twomey added.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/judge-appalled-by-video-footage-after-man-says-garda-broke-his-arm-1-4036016

So not only did they lie to the court about what happened, it appears they brought charges in order to intimidate yer man.

Scioch

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

For such a small police force in terms of numbers, there does appear to be an alarming number of 'incidents' - such as down in Wafurd, this case, the lad getting the shyte kicked out of him in Dublin - which show the old 'heavy gang' spirit us still alive and well in sections of the GS.

Whats the alarming number ? Where did you see these numbers ? I'm 30 years old and in all my life I have never come across this "heavy gang" spirit in the Gardai. I'd bet my life the overwhelming majority of people who have have been absolute arseholes who intentionally try to illicit that type of reaction.


Gardai spend their time dealing with a lot of trouble makers, drunks, anti social types and aggressive people. People who like nothing more than to torment them and try get a reaction of out them. So a few incidents have to be expected. Granted Gardai should not behave in that way regardless but if they do its not indicative of the general attitude of the entire service.

MagicSean

Nodin wrote: »

It doesn't matter why he was videoing anything, because thats not a crime. There was no situation to "help" with, and so why would he. In addition




http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/judge-appalled-by-video-footage-after-man-says-garda-broke-his-arm-1-4036016

So not only did they lie to the court about what happened, it appears they brought charges in order to intimidate yer man.

An adult caution is only available if you accept your responsability in what you are alleged to do. If you decide to fight it then you cannot avail of the adult caution.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

There will eventually be some laws brough in regarding phone recording in public imo.

I believe recording police brutality is our civic duty. As regards privacy - the recording can be uploaded anonymously, held as evidence, or given to a third party wikileaks style. If a person is being arrested for being a scumbag he doesn't deserve privacy. If cop is being a scumbag he doesn't deserve it either.

Even if the more fascistic among us (plenty of them in this thread - frighteningly enough) did manage to make it illegal what are they going to do? Arrest 50 people who have their phones in their hands at the time? Commandeer all CCTV footage? In your dreams. The genie is out of the bottle and it is never ever going back in.

Caliden

I was out in Galway one night and saw a girl getting tossed into the back of a Garda van and decided to take a picture of it.

The picture came out ****e but in less than 10 seconds I was surrounded by no less than 4 Gardai with one saying something along the lines of "delete that video or I will arrest under section blah of blah blah" with another chiming in with something along the same lines.

I knew it was utter ****e but when you're surrounded by Gardai just waiting for you to make a wrong move I deleted the picture and got a taxi.

yore

MagicSean wrote: »

An adult caution is only available if you accept your responsability in what you are alleged to do. If you decide to fight it then you cannot avail of the adult caution.

What is this supposed to mean
Guard: Yeah we broke your arm. but we'll say it was your own fault and you can walk away if you accept this caution and accept responsibility
Victim: hmmmm. Wait a minute, I didn't do anything and had my arm broken
Guard: It's either that or we'll bring you to court and try to get you a criminal conviction
Victim: I want to stand up for my rights
Guard: Right so. It'll be your word against mine. Wait here a minute until I concoct a report about how drunk you were before my colleague signs off on how you magically sobered up fully in the space of half an hour.

The Guards didn't have to falsely caution or charge the victim. They tried to do so to remove blame from themselves and save their own skin. Pointing out a technicality such as you did is nonsense. What next? Guards falsely manufacture evidence to charge someone random with murder and then you can say "ah yeah, but sure he wouldn't plead guilty to manslaughter so they had to charge him with murder"

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I believe recording police brutality is our civic duty. As regards privacy - the recording can be uploaded anonymously, held as evidence, or given to a third party wikileaks style. If a person is being arrested for being a scumbag he doesn't deserve privacy. If cop is being a scumbag he doesn't deserve it either.

Even if the more fascistic among us (plenty of them in this thread - frighteningly enough) did manage to make it illegal what are they going to do? Arrest 50 people who have their phones in their hands at the time? Commandeer all CCTV footage? In your dreams. The genie is out of the bottle and it is never ever going back in.

Nice of you to only quote a part of my post. Sorry, I meant to say pathetic, not nice. You also dodged the whole part about people being treated by medical personnel.

Not every Garda who arrests someone is using police brutality. Not everyone who is arrested is a scumbag. Not everyone who is arrested is guilty. In fact, the law in Ireland requires a person to be arrested merely to be questioned formaly in relation to a crime. People are still entitled to their privacy.

MagicSean

yore wrote: »

What is this supposed to mean
Guard: Yeah we broke your arm. but we'll say it was your own fault and you can walk away if you accept this caution and accept responsibility
Victim: hmmmm. Wait a minute, I didn't do anything and had my arm broken
Guard: It's either that or we'll bring you to court and try to get you a criminal conviction
Victim: I want to stand up for my rights
Guard: Right so. It'll be your word against mine. Wait here a minute until I concoct a report about how drunk you were before my colleague signs off on how you magically sobered up fully in the space of half an hour.

The Guards didn't have to falsely caution or charge the victim. They tried to do so to remove blame from themselves and save their own skin. Pointing out a technicality such as you did is nonsense. What next? Guards falsely manufacture evidence to charge someone random with murder and then you can say "ah yeah, but sure he wouldn't plead guilty to manslaughter so they had to charge him with murder"

Maybe you should read up on the adult caution scheme. An adult caution is offered to someone who wishes to accept that they did wrong but would like to avoid a court conviction. You cannot accept a caution while at the same time saying you didn't do anything wrong. The court is the correct place to argue that.

yore

MagicSean wrote: »

Maybe you should read up on the adult caution scheme. An adult caution is offered to someone who wishes to accept that they did wrong but would like to avoid a court conviction. You cannot accept a caution while at the same time saying you didn't do anything wrong. The court is the correct place to argue that.

No, I think I have the idea. It's like accepting an on the spot fine and points if you are caught speeding. Alternatively you can go to court and fight them, but risk more penalties if you do that.
You seem to be saying that the Guards were right to falsely bring that man to court because he wouldn't accept responsibility via accepting a bogus caution. Or that they were somehow obliged to charge him and bring him to court. I'll let you into a little secret - they had another option which was to not make sh1t up about the fella and falsely charge him.

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

An adult caution is only available if you accept your responsability in what you are alleged to do. If you decide to fight it then you cannot avail of the adult caution.

...which rather presumes there was a basis for him being arrested in the first place.

Paparazzo

MagicSean wrote: »

There will eventually be some laws brough in regarding phone recording in public imo. Whatever about recording the Gardaí on duty, the privacy of the person being arrested should be considered. The same goes for people recording at the aftermath of car crashes or other tragedies.

Cameras banned from public! Seriously, think about it for a second, that's ridiculous.

Chuck Stone

@ MagicSean. I avoided nothing - I simply addressed the part that concerned me most.

MagicSean wrote: »

Whatever about recording the Gardaí on duty, the privacy of the person being arrested should be considered.

I'd imagine innocent people being arrested would feel safer in the knowledge that someone is/might be filming it rather than it being illegal - I know I would.

The same goes for people recording at the aftermath of car crashes or other tragedies.

I believe that recording the aftermath of crashes and such is perverse voyeurism and totally disrespectful to the injured and dead but I can't see how legislation would prevent these insensitive weirdos from doing it.

Atlantis50

Paparazzo wrote: »

Cameras banned from public! Seriously, think about it for a second, that's ridiculous.

:rolleyes:

Where did anyone suggest that?

Paparazzo

Atlantis50 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Where did anyone suggest that?

The post I quoted. Here it is again:

MagicSean wrote: »

There will eventually be some laws brough in regarding phone recording in public imo. Whatever about recording the Gardaí on duty, the privacy of the person being arrested should be considered. The same goes for people recording at the aftermath of car crashes or other tragedies.

Atlantis50

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I believe that recording the aftermath of crashes and such is perverse voyeurism and totally disrespectful to the injured and dead but I can't see how legislation would prevent these insensitive weirdos from doing it.

Any such legislation would probably not ban making a recording, but would make it illegal to publish the recording without the consent of the recorded with some exceptions (e.g if it's in 'the public interest').

charlemont

The Guard who broke the man's arm should be charged with assault, All the fool has done is bring more heat and a bad name on his colleagues, I'm sure the man will sue him now and he can kiss his career goodbye.



Imagine him searching you and finding a packet of large Rizla papers :P

Atlantis50

Paparazzo wrote: »

The post I quoted. Here it is again:

See my post above.

RustyNut

MagicSean wrote: »

There will eventually be some laws brough in regarding phone recording in public imo. Whatever about recording the Gardaí on duty, the privacy of the person being arrested should be considered. The same goes for people recording at the aftermath of car crashes or other tragedies.

The only people to benefit from this would be the people with something to hide, like the few rogue Guards who use excessive force etc.

I'd bet the banner who was filmed recently giving some young lad a few slaps with her asp would be glad of the video of the incident as it would appear to justify her use of force.

Chuck Stone

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Any such legislation would probably not ban making a recording, but would make it illegal to publish the recording

Sounds like a nightmare to police.

Point taken though.

hatrickpatrick

croker1 wrote: »

The guy probably deserved it tbh! I'm pretty sure he wasn't as innocent as a lot of people are making him out to be

The Gardai do not have the right to assault anybody. Period. They are allowed to use reasonable force when it's absolutely necessary. In this case it was neither reasonable or necessary.

What the hell does "leave the area" even mean? It's a public street, does it mean go to the next street, walk 5 minutes down the road, what?

MadsL

biko wrote: »

Apparently it is in some states in the "land of the free" though.

Apparently, you are entirely wrong.

Illinois has an anti-eavesdropping law. A citizen recorded police investigators trying to convince her not to file a report against an officer she claims groped her while on duty. She spent two weeks in jail charged under that law.

The ACLU took up the case and a federal court ruled that Illinois' controversial eavesdropping law "likely violates" the first amendment, and called for the state to stop prosecuting those facing eavesdropping charges.

The ACLU would take this to the Supreme Court if necessary.

No other state has such a law, if it did, it too would likely violate the first amendment of the "land of the free".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/illinois-eavesdropping-la_n_1500272.html

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Paparazzo

Atlantis50 wrote: »

See my post above.

What's the part of the phone that takes photos and records video? I can't think of the name. My phone has a 8 megapixel....eh.....
Sorry, can't think of what it's called.

hatrickpatrick

croker1 wrote: »

Because my point was that the man in question was not set upon by the guards for no reason. He was causing enough trouble for the bouncers to call the guards in the first place. The way people were talking about him in this thread you would think the guards spotted him across the road and thought "He looks like the perfect lad to kick the **** out of"

Being "set upon" by the Guards is not acceptable whether you've done something wrong or not. Breaking somebody's arm is not reasonable force. I can't imagine any scenario in which that level of violence would be required to arrest somebody.

MagicSean

yore wrote: »

No, I think I have the idea. It's like accepting an on the spot fine and points if you are caught speeding. Alternatively you can go to court and fight them, but risk more penalties if you do that.
You seem to be saying that the Guards were right to falsely bring that man to court because he wouldn't accept responsibility via accepting a bogus caution. Or that they were somehow obliged to charge him and bring him to court. I'll let you into a little secret - they had another option which was to not make sh1t up about the fella and falsely charge him.

You are completely misrepresenting me. I never said they should have brought him to court. I simply explained to you why an adult caution could not be used in such an instance.

Paparazzo wrote: »

Cameras banned from public! Seriously, think about it for a second, that's ridiculous.

Never said anything like that.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

@ MagicSean. I avoided nothing - I simply addressed the part that concerned me most.

No chuck, you dealt with the privacy issue which was also in my post but did not quote it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd imagine innocent people being arrested would feel safer in the knowledge that someone is/might be filming it rather than it being illegal - I know I would.

I disagree. An inocent person would likely be embarassed to have their name and picture published in relation to a crime. Look at that landlord in England who was questioned in relation to Joanna Yeates. Do you think he was happy the media were there to ensure his handcuffs weren't too tight?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I believe that recording the aftermath of crashes and such is perverse voyeurism and totally disrespectful to the injured and dead but I can't see how legislation would prevent these insensitive weirdos from doing it.

I meant more along the lines of publishing the footage to be honest. Video something if you are there sure. But pass it to the proper authorities after, be it the Gardaí, the Ombudsman, the HSA or whoever. There should be no right to distribute, sell or keep it for your own amusement.

RustyNut wrote: »

The only people to benefit from this would be the people with something to hide, like the few rogue Guards who use excessive force etc.

I'd bet the banner who was filmed recently giving some young lad a few slaps with her asp would be glad of the video of the incident as it would appear to justify her use of force.

Maybe she would, but that footage was not handed to the Ombudsman, it was posted on youtube. Almost worthless as regards it's evidential value. i disagree that the only people who would benefit would be rogue gardaí. Many people wish to preserve their privacy fpr various reasons. i've already given the example of the Joanna Yeates case.

Dangerous Man

Guards in perverting the course of justice / assault / intimidation / collusion / cowardice shocker. I don't know how many more instances of this kind of thing we need to see before we realize how terrible our police force is...

MagicSean

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Being "set upon" by the Guards is not acceptable whether you've done something wrong or not. Breaking somebody's arm is not reasonable force. I can't imagine any scenario in which that level of violence would be required to arrest somebody.

Violence isn't necessary to break a bone, force is. The two things are not the same. A single strike from a baton could break an arm but would still be considered very reasonable force.

RustyNut

MagicSean wrote: »

Many people wish to preserve their privacy fpr various reasons. i've already given the example of the Joanna Yeates case.

If you are in a public place then what you do is public.

Chuck Stone

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I don't know how many more instances of this kind of thing we need to see before we realize how terrible our police force is...

I don't think we've that bad of a police force in the grand scheme of things tbh. In a general sense I'd much rather have to deal with an Irish Garda over any other nationality of police.

MagicSean

RustyNut wrote: »

If you are in a public place then what you do is public.

If you are arrested in a private place you have to be brought into a public place afterwards. You are not there by choice.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think we've that bad of a police force in the grand scheme of things tbh. In a general sense I'd much rather have to deal with an Irish Garda over any other nationality of police.

It's an interesting aspect of the Gardaí. The more professional and by the book they are, the less they are liked.

phill106

syklops wrote: »

We are not being told all the facts, from either side.

DIdnt the cctv show all the facts? Injured party minding his own business, then filming the cops, and then getting attacked?

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

The more professional and by the book they are, the less they are liked.

I don't think 'professional' and 'by the book' need be synonymous.

For example, the majority of Guards here won't be ball breakers over a week out of motor tax - but could still come across as professional and courteous.

Also, I've been on nights out and there have been guards in the group and it doesn't change the atmosphere. I'm not sure that would be the same in other countries (complete guess, granted).

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think 'professional' and 'by the book' need be synonymous.

Unfortunately many people do not see the distinction.

Dangerous Man

MagicSean wrote: »

If you are arrested in a private place you have to be brought into a public place afterwards. You are not there by choice.



It's an interesting aspect of the Gardaí. The more professional and by the book they are, the less they are liked.

Must troll harder.