Policing reality or political correctness

deadwood

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I don't want to get into specifics on an internet forum. I hope you respect this, but I can assure you that I'm not pretending to be something I'm not. I have experience in the area.

"Judge. My client is not guilty. I can't get into specifics so you're just going to have to trust me on this one. I have personal experience in this area.
No more questions."

Doesn't cut the mustard here, or in the real world, i'm afraid, johnny.

Johnny Utah

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Johnny is a student or barrack room lawyer.

Its evident in his refusal to state anything to back up his claims. I mean you know my name, rank and station as well as Nogs and vice versa. We all know a little about eachother without fear of the internet gremlins getting us but hey, lets just trust Johnny and a few others.

Besides, when the hell does a judge refuse to allow the defence question a Gardas power based on time limits? Its probable one of the most common angles employed in drugs and drink driving cases.

Firstly, I don't know your name/rank/station or nog's either, and I don't particularly want or need to know. I've already said that I don't want to get into specifics about my own qualifications and experience. I'd prefer if you respected my wish and didn't try to second-guess my position- no, I'm not a 'barrack room lawyer', and please don't refer to me as such. In any event, it shouldn't make much difference to the debate on reasonable suspicion, as I think I have provided worthwhile contributions on the topic.


Re judges: I never said a judge would refuse questioning a garda's powers. I said it was inpractical for the defence to raise it in the DC. Furthermore, it is very difficult to prove at trial that the Guard acted without reasonable suspicion. I'll put it another way; how often do you see a case at summary trial thrown out because the Guard was found to have conducted an illegal search? Not often I'd bet.




And, finally, if you want to have a civil debate, then that's fine. However, if this thread is going to descend into petty personal abuse (not having a go at you specifically Karlito), then it would be better if the mods closed the thread. I'm happy to engage in robust, civil debate, but please don't accuse me of trolling as I think my last post contained some worthwhile points.

TheNog

While I agree with both sides of the arguements I do however a problem with the underlying direction this thread is taking. From my perspective I think this thread is descending into a "us against them" attitude which I am warning everyone, will not be tolerated.

This forum was created for the benefit of serving members of the Emergency Services and for civilians to post, exchange ideas, information and to discuss general topics. At the moment I can get a very real sense that people will eventually be put off from posting here thus leaving only ES people only which I think would be to the detriment of this forum. In fact I know of at least one prolific poster on boards.ie who has been put off coming by here again.

As far as this thread goes I think it should be left open to see if it can be pulled back from the brink. So from now on no more putting down people or flaming or accusations of any sort. If you feel a poster has over stepped the mark, then report it and let us Mods do our job.

TheNog

Eru

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Firstly, I don't know your name/rank/station or nog's either, and I don't particularly want or need to know. I've already said that I don't want to get into specifics about my own qualifications and experience. I'd prefer if you respected my wish and didn't try to second-guess my position- no, I'm not a 'barrack room lawyer', and please don't refer to me as such. In any event, it shouldn't make much difference to the debate on reasonable suspicion, as I think I have provided worthwhile contributions on the topic.


Re judges: I never said a judge would refuse questioning a garda's powers. I said it was inpractical for the defence to raise it in the DC. Furthermore, it is very difficult to prove at trial that the Guard acted without reasonable suspicion. I'll put it another way; how often do you see a case at summary trial thrown out because the Guard was found to have conducted an illegal search? Not often I'd bet.




And, finally, if you want to have a civil debate, then that's fine. However, if this thread is going to descend into petty personal abuse (not having a go at you specifically Karlito), then it would be better if the mods closed the thread. I'm happy to engage in robust, civil debate, but please don't accuse me of trolling as I think my last post contained some worthwhile points.

I have no problem with debate but if your going to describe yourself as someone with experience in cases and the law then yes, I do require some evidence of such. To date I see nothing of the sort and I disagree with your statement that arguements are not raised in district court. Most drink driving and drug offences are tried in the district court and during this Garda powers, our knowledge and use of them and the legality of said use is often the main target by a defence solicitor.

And the reason cases are rarely thrown out is because our use of the powers are legal and our reasonable suspicion, etc acceptable.

You seem to be under the belief that trials are conducted only in higher courts when the majority start and finish in the district. Are you suggesting that defence solicitors dont fight cases unless they go further? Or that judges dont conduct a proper hearing because of time limits? If thats your belief then your casting the judiciary and legal eagles in a very poor light.

Besides all this, your original point still has not been proven either with case law, statute or any evidence that there was a complaint or action taken against the officer. All you have is personal opinion and without providing evidence to support your opinion it remains only a laymans opinion.