Jobstown water protesters to be charged

ohnonotgmail

The Muppet wrote: »

Who appointed you the spokesperson for Law abiding citizens?

I'm a law abiding citizen as I imagine are many other contributors to this thread but I will be disgusted if anyone is charged with false imprisionment for peacefully protesting .

Thats my own opinion I know not everyone shares its.

i too would be disgusted if somebody is charged with false imprisonment if they were peacefully protesting. but that isnt what is happening.

The Muppet

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i too would be disgusted if somebody is charged with false imprisonment if they were peacefully protesting. but that isnt what is happening.

We don't really know that yet though do we?

ohnonotgmail

The Muppet wrote: »

We don't really know that yet though do we?

i think the video evidence is pretty convincing.

The Muppet

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think the video evidence is pretty convincing.

Of what? We dont know who is being charged with what do we or what evidence there is to support those charges ?

Graham

The Muppet wrote: »

Of what? We dont know who is being charged with what do we or what evidence there is to support those charges ?

True, innocent until proved guilty and all that.

It would be unwise to assume that someone is going to be found guilty just because the DPP considers there is enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Of course that doesn't prevent us from hoping people are held accountable for their actions.

JacquesSon

The Muppet wrote: »

Of what? We dont know who is being charged with what do we or what evidence there is to support those charges ?

We're still outraged by the whole thing. :mad:

It's just another example of corruption and the abuse of the peeeple.

ohnonotgmail

The Muppet wrote: »

Of what? We dont know who is being charged with what do we or what evidence there is to support those charges ?

evidence of false imprisonment.

The Muppet

Graham wrote: »

True, innocent until proved guilty and all that.

It would be unwise to assume that someone is going to be found guilty just because the DPP considers there is enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Of course that doesn't prevent us from hoping people are held accountable for their actions.

I'd have no problem with anyone being held accountable for their actions once those actions are not being blown out of all proportions to be made out to be something they obviously were not.

falan

The Muppet wrote:

Yeah it's possible that while Joan was smiling and waving to the crowd her armed Garda driver was shi**ing himself, after all he only had A gun, the other Garda present, the public order unit and a helicopter for backup if things turned nasty.

It's like the time last year when I was in Manchester airport when 8 armed police with uzis came into the cafe I was in and started queuing behind me. I felt pretty safe at that moment. Joan felt safe in jobstown, no doubt about it.

Graham

The Muppet wrote: »

once those actions are not being blown out of all proportions to be made out to be something they obviously were not.

Luckily we have legal process/Courts to ensure that doesn't happen.

falan

Graham wrote:

Luckily we have legal process/Courts to ensure that doesn't happen.

So let the courts decide instead of being judge, jury and executioner. Kangaroo court indeed!

ohnonotgmail

falan wrote: »

It's like the time last year when I was in Manchester airport when 8 armed police with uzis came into the cafe I was in and started queuing behind me. I felt pretty safe at that moment. Joan felt safe in jobstown, no doubt about it.

which is totally irrelevant to a charge of false imprisonment.

Graham

falan wrote: »

So let the courts decide instead of being judge, jury and executioner. Kangaroo court indeed!

I must have missed when I did that.

I won't pretend I'm not please a Court will get to make that judgment though.

Little CuChulainn

The Muppet wrote: »

I'd have no problem with anyone being held accountable for their actions once those actions are not being blown out of all proportions to be made out to be something they obviously were not.

If you were Joan in that car, would you have felt safe getting out and walking through the crowd?

The Muppet

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If you were Joan in that car, would you have felt safe getting out and walking through the crowd?

I don't know .

Flatzie_poo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If you were Joan in that car, would you have felt safe getting out and walking through the crowd?

Hey if I don't feel safe during a St Patricks Day Parade, can I sue council?

I mean, such a large congregation of people... and they stop me from driving certain routes too...

mickydoomsux

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Hey if I don't feel safe during a St Patricks Day Parade, can I sue council?

I mean, such a large congregation of people... and they stop me from driving certain routes too...

Shame that that's a sanctioned parade with pre-planned route closures so it isn't even close to the same thing.

Graham

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Hey if I don't feel safe during a St Patricks Day Parade, can I sue council?

I mean, such a large congregation of people... and they stop me from driving certain routes too...

The "it's just like a carnival' point was made several pages back.

TomBtheGoat

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

whether she was going to the dail or not is irrelevant.

Sorry since we pay her wages, everything she does in the public spectrum is very relevant.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think the video evidence is pretty convincing.

its no more convincing then the cat

Graham

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

Sorry since we pay her wages, everything she does in the public spectrum is very relevant.

The law applies equally whatever the destination.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

evidence of false imprisonment.

i don't see any false imprisonment TBH. by all accounts she was able to leave the car but chose not to

mickydoomsux

end of the road wrote: »

its no more convincing then the cat

What did the cat do next?

I need to know

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

but rightly chose not to

That suggests you believe there was good reason to decide not to. Something like threats and intimidation perhaps?

end of the road

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Shame that that's a sanctioned parade with pre-planned route closures so it isn't even close to the same thing.

i believe the protest was itself sanctioned, with road closures around the area.

end of the road

Graham wrote: »

That suggests you believe there was good reason to decide not to. Something like threats and intimidation perhaps?

no .

mickydoomsux

end of the road wrote: »

i believe the protest was itself sanctioned, with road closures around the area.

I can't find anything to say whether it was or wasn't

conorh91

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Hey if I don't feel safe during a St Patricks Day Parade, can I sue council?

I mean, such a large congregation of people... and they stop me from driving certain routes too...

If another 10 people repeated another 10 times that false imprisonment has nothing to do with blocking roads per se, people would still conflate the two.

False imprisonment relates to the intentional or reckless detention of a person within a confined space. Traffic diversions and busy streets have nothing to do with it. If you detach yourself from your personal opinions on this, you'll see what a straightforward rule applies here.

ohnonotgmail

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

Sorry since we pay her wages, everything she does in the public spectrum is very relevant.

it is not relevant to the criminal charges these thugs are facing. it doesnt matter where she was going, false imprisonment is false imprisonment.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

i don't see any false imprisonment TBH. by all accounts she was able to leave the car but chose not to

nay, nay and thrice nay.