Filming Gardai

Im melting away · 10-10-2020 1:35pm

bubblypop wrote: »

If you are going to use the law to back up your arguments, you really should use the actual legal definition of 'assault'

I did, section 2 assault keep up.

Always film.your interactions with guards on a burner potato, in case they "take your phone for evidence"

10-10-2020 1:41pm

Im melting away wrote: »

I did, section 2 assault keep up.

Always film.your interactions with guards on a burner potato, in case they "take your phone for evidence"

that's not the legal definition of section 2 assault.
do keep up

Im melting away · 10-10-2020 1:55pm

bubblypop wrote: »

that's not the legal definition of section 2 assault.
do keep up

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

There it is for you, by the letter of the law a section 2 assault had occurred, now will that guard be charged? He will in me hole.

As I've said previously, camaras have softened members coughs, with their own indiscretion, which is only a good thing.

10-10-2020 2:13pm

Im melting away wrote: »

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

There it is for you, by the letter of the law a section 2 assault had occurred, now will that guard be charged? He will in me hole.

As I've said previously, camaras have softened members coughs, with their own indiscretion, which is only a good thing.

well done.
now, very first line, 'without lawful excuse'
we do not know what occurred just before this video, there may be a lawful reason why the guard stopped this man from doing what he was doing.

thats the problem with believing everything you see on the internet, people rarely post the whole story.

Im melting away · 10-10-2020 2:18pm

bubblypop wrote: »

well done.
now, very first line, 'without lawful excuse'
we do not know what occurred just before this video, there may be a lawful reason why the guard stopped this man from doing what he was doing.

thats the problem with believing everything you see on the internet, people rarely post the whole story.

Haha you're quality I shouldn't have expected anything different, let the guard be charged and investigated, but that doesn't happen, its a complaint to GSOC, who sent it back to another super to investigate, a cosy set-up ye have.

10-10-2020 2:21pm

Im melting away wrote: »

Haha you're quality I shouldn't have expected anything different, let the guard be charged and investigated, but that doesn't happen, its a complaint to GSOC, who sent it back to another super to investigate, a cosy set-up ye have.

You have to investigate before someone is charged........:D

Evidence speaks for itself, if a guard commits a crime, they are charged same as anyone else......

10-10-2020 2:27pm

Im melting away wrote: »

"An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in criminal prosecution, civil liability, or both"

Did the protester ask for his hand or phone to be touched?

NO he didnt.

It's assault by the letters of the law.

Sucks when your limited knowledge doesn't get you over the line eh?

You just pulled that out of your own arse. Got there eventually even if you still only selectively read Section 2. I presume you think the Garda should have been arrested and charged on the spot for this section 2 assault, yes?

Buffoons abound in this world

FGR · 10-10-2020 2:32pm

I was going to mention Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 'power to seize and retain evidence' but DPP v Braddish is already enough grounds to justify seizing the phone in this case!

As regards if there's an offence of filming vs an offence of publishing material which could identify a juvenile - the guard may have had grounds to believe the footage may be published given the many thousands of examples on social media of same occurring.

I think the guard was doing this person a favour!

AnMuinteoirOg · 10-10-2020 2:35pm

Im melting away wrote: »

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

There it is for you, by the letter of the law a section 2 assault had occurred, now will that guard be charged? He will in me hole.

As I've said previously, camaras have softened members coughs, with their own indiscretion, which is only a good thing.

You also forgot S.18 of the same act

18.— (1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

( a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

( b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or

( c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or

( d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

( e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

GT89 · 10-10-2020 2:44pm

PsychoPete wrote: »

If someone was following me around with a camera while I work, I'd probably ram the camera down their throat

Smart move when you find yourself in court for assault

Graham · 10-10-2020 2:58pm

Im melting away wrote: »

There it is for you, by the letter of the law a section 2 assault had occurred, now will that guard be charged? He will in me hole.

Funny I didn't get that from the video, I thought more of a public order offence "Failure to comply with the direction of a member of An Garda Síochána".

Strumms · 10-10-2020 3:07pm

Graham wrote: »

Funny I didn't get that from the video, I thought more of a public order offence "Failure to comply with the direction of a member of An Garda Síochána".

Totally. Not a judge in the land I’d imagine would go on the side of the camera aggressor.

10-10-2020 3:09pm

GT89 wrote: »

Smart move when you find yourself in court for assault

Actual assault or GT89 assault? Apparantly they are different

Im melting away · 10-10-2020 3:31pm

Strumms wrote: »

Totally. Not a judge in the land I’d imagine would go on the side of the camera aggressor.

Funny how any criticism of our peace commissioners to be held account like any other citizen brings ye all out, defenders assemble, tango, oscar, aphla we have a critic, defend.

Of course a judge wouldn't, guards judges and solicitors are all the one.

Graham · 10-10-2020 3:33pm

Im melting away wrote: »

Of course a judge wouldn't, guards judges and solicitors are all the one.

Yeah, that's not how it works either.

10-10-2020 3:36pm

humberklog wrote: »

Yeah, Ireland is quite the odd one in this compared to most countries.

I don't think that's true, is it? Ireland's laws in relation to photography in a public space seem to be in line with most of the rest of the world, I'd imagine?

Cluedo Monopoly · 10-10-2020 4:06pm

The public lost a lot of trust for Gardaí over the past 20 years. And with good cause. They were a corrupt force for many years.
It has improved thanks to heroes like McCabe.

tayto lover · 10-10-2020 4:12pm

We also got fed up of tramps, freemen, agitators and pure scum acting the bollox too especially with cameras.

Oranage2 · 10-10-2020 4:20pm

They're public servants working in public. People are allowed to record in public. It's like a footballer saying he doesn't want to be recorded when he's doing his job.

If the Garda doesn't like it then he should find another job.

arccosh · 10-10-2020 4:27pm

probably gonna be an unpopular observation

but looking at the video in the original post... the person videoing it left themselves open to be arrested for a number of public order offences....

the video doesn't show the full story, but what it does show is someone shouting and using intimidating behaviour to a garda...

The garda could give them a warning a number of times, if they don't comply, they could be arrested and charged under sections 8 & 6, and possibly 5 of the public order act.

uploading this, on his personal account, with the possibility of no evidence of the alleged previous incident, may just come back to bite him.

humberklog · 10-10-2020 4:34pm

Tá

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think that's true, is it? Ireland's laws in relation to photography in a public space seem to be in line with most of the rest of the world, I'd imagine?

Indeed, you're right KKV.

Sam Quentin · 10-10-2020 4:38pm

ted1 wrote: »

Because snippets don’t tell a full story.
Generally people who film are gob****es.

Would you like if someone walked behind you filming you at work ?do you even work ?

I ROFL at that answer 😂😂

arccosh · 10-10-2020 4:39pm

Akesh wrote: »

No it won't and he cannot be prosecuted for anything in that video. A lot of Gardai have a very poor understanding of the public order act.

So do a lot of the public....not picking a side here at all, just calling a spade a spade, and have experience of people being lifted for less.

tayto lover · 10-10-2020 4:47pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

They're public servants working in public. People are allowed to record in public. It's like a footballer saying he doesn't want to be recorded when he's doing his job.

If the Garda doesn't like it then he should find another job.

That’s bull****.
Footballers don’t have people in their faces at close range on the public street.
If that scummer did that to a member of the public going about their daily business he’d be clocked good and hard and nobody would have any sympathy for him.
It’s a scummy thing done by a scummy person.

blanch152 · 10-10-2020 4:57pm

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

The public lost a lot of trust for Gardaí over the past 20 years. And with good cause. They were a corrupt force for many years.
It has improved thanks to heroes like McCabe.

Unfortunately you don’t have a clue.

By international standards we have one of the least corrupt police forces in the world.

Graham · 10-10-2020 5:02pm

tayto lover wrote: »

That’s bull****.
Footballers don’t have people in their faces at close range on the public street.
If that scummer did that to a member of the public going about their daily business he’d be clocked good and hard and nobody would have any sympathy for him.
It’s a scummy thing done by a scummy person.

I suspect that's the exact reaction he's hoping to provoke camera in-hand.

Covid19 · 10-10-2020 5:03pm

GT89 wrote: »

Even if they are gob****es and acting the maggot still no excuse for the G7ardai to assault them. If they are breaking the law the Gardai can arrest if not they really should descalate. Name a job where you wouldn't get sacked for physically taking a phone out of someones hand without their consent?

Pretty much every Job. You would know that if you were working. People don't like to be filmed without their consent. You've heard of GDPR. Walk onto any farm in Ireland, for example, wielding a camera and you'll learn a thing or two. Folks outside the M50 don't put up with the bull**** that goes on in Dublin.

Graham · 10-10-2020 5:04pm

Akesh wrote: »

A lot of Gardai have a very poor understanding of the public order act.

More so for most of the general public.

arccosh · 10-10-2020 5:14pm

Covid19 wrote: »

Pretty much every Job. You would know that if you were working. People don't like to be filmed without their consent. You've heard of GDPR. Walk onto any farm in Ireland, for example, wielding a camera and you'll learn a thing or two. Folks outside the M50 don't put up with the bull**** that goes on in Dublin.

GDPR has only partial powers for being filmed in public (consent isn't needed, but the length of time someone is in the video could be grounds for a GDPR breach)..

In a workplace (i.e. private place) it's a different story completely.

Strumms · 10-10-2020 6:10pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

They're public servants working in public. People are allowed to record in public. It's like a footballer saying he doesn't want to be recorded when he's doing his job.

If the Garda doesn't like it then he should find another job.

Recording is ok. But when sombody invites themselves into your personal space... a camera literaly shoved in your face... to the point you can become worried about your personal safety.. as well as your ability to do your job and ensure the safety and wellbeing of the public... thats when its time to act..

If im customer services at a train station for example and some toolbag came up with a camera like that and that attitude... same.... not a train he'd be getting.

Filming Gardai

Comments