What planet are this jury on-killing of Robbie McCallion

eroo

A Garda who is killed in the line of duty should be treated differently. They are the ones who confront the worst society has to offer, and thanks to them most people will never have to encounter that dark side of life.

So, when a member is killed it is an attack on the very people who enforce law and order.. and an attack on law and order itself. That warrants recognition imo.

Shield

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Should gardai be put on a pedestal?

Those who are killed in the line of duty - yes! Anyone who dies serving their country is, in my opinion, worthy of a posthumous pedestal.

pah

psni wrote: »

Those who are killed in the line of duty - yes! Anyone who dies serving their country is, in my opinion, worthy of a posthumous pedestal.

+1

AlekSmart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He said a garda should be treated as any other person. What's wrong with that? Should gardai be put on a pedestal? Or possibly, was he trying to avoid the "garda got what he deserved" brigade?

But,Johnnyskeleton,the learned Judge did NOT say those words.

The words reported by the Media were as posted by CaseyRyback.

"Don't be carried away by the fact that he was a garda."

As a serving member of the Judiciary who,on a daily basis, comes into contact with the best of wordsmiths,Judge O Hagan himself must realize that his use of loose terminology would be open to scrutiny.

This is why I performed a double-take when I initially read of his comments.

Johnnyskeleton: By your logic, they must have been positively buoyed up by this decision:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/g...al-477522.html

I`m unsure that poccington`s powers of logic are well buoyed or not,but mine were spurred on to return to the "scene of the crime" so to speak....

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/garda-charged-with-assaulting-joyriders-2243663.html

Some of the more logic buoying aspects of this case from the above article...

Mr Henry (19) said in evidence he had been out with friends drinking in Dublin city centre and was "locked" on vodka, sambuca, wine and beer. He "ended up robbing a car" to get home to Coolock at around 2am and Mr Maughan went with him. He was handed the keys to a Volkswagen Polo by someone he declined to identify at Marlborough Place.

Mr Gordon (Defence Counsel) said the car owner's version of what happened was that four people had approached him, demanding money as he went to get in to his car. One of them pulled a knife on him and he dropped his keys as he ran in fear. Henry denied that this happened.

Neither alleged victim identified any specific garda as having assaulted them.

In cross examination, Mr Maughan said he had taken cocaine, tablets, hash and alcohol. He was also in custody in Cloverhill, on remand charged with robbery.

Thankfully,Garda Hughes survived his close encounter with violent,thieving,aggrieved youth but sadly for Garda McCallion`s family,their son did`nt.

leana

7 years with the last one suspended.

Will add a link when I find one.

http://www.donegaldaily.com/

What a disgrace.

AlekSmart

This Judge still appears to have a degree of explaining to do in relation to his remarks last week .

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2011/02/11/cop-killer-mcgrenaghan-to-be-sentenced-today/


Indeed in the sentencing hearing he appeared to brazen it out in what I can only describe as a calculated attempt to send a clear message to Donegal`s criminally inclined youth....

In a highly-charged courtroom, Judge John O’Hagan said it was a very, very serious case but one in which he must not seek to take revenge on Jamie McGrenaghan.

Having said that he appreciated the fact that Gardai go out onto the streets everyday to protect the lives of the public.

“Robbie McCallion was a member of the Gardai. An Garda Siochana go out to look after us. They are not called guardians of the peace for nothing. They take risks on our behalf,” he said.

However in a lengthy summing up, he criticised public representatives for questioning the decision by him advising the jury to ignore the fact that Robert McCallion was a Garda saying he was merely following the instructions of the Minister for Justice.

“Some people have decided to rush to judgement but that is a matter for them and their opinion. I will supply the law and that is what I will do,” he said.

.....Judge O`Hagan appears to restate his message that because they choose to take the Garda Oath,young men and women somehow or other become less deserving of regard than the thuggish elements who decide to pit themselves against these Gardai,and inter-alia the rest of us.

Did Judge O`Hagan take any particular note of the evidence....

He revealed how McGrenaghan and another man, Cathal Dunleavy, went to Tara Court to steal a car at Tara Court in Letterkenny during the early hours of March 26th, 2009.

McGrenaghan reversed his red Peugeot car back up one hundred yards before accelerating at the Gardai and swerving away to the left at the last second.

Gardai revealed how they could hear the screeching of tyres as McGrenaghan took off towards them reaching a speed of up to 40mph.

However he struck the patrol car and the stolen white Toyota Corolla car sending Garda McCallion flying 15 feet up into the air and knocking over part of the garden wall and a pillar.

Barrister for McGrenaghan Denis Buckley Vaughan said his client pleaded guilty at earliest possible time to the dangerous diving causing death and the unlawful taking of a car.

He said he had been with a man who had 45 convictions and that McGrenagan was very much under his powers.

If this is the best interpretation of "supplying the law" that this particular Judge can do then I would respectfully suggest he at least desist from attempting to drag the Minister for Justice onto the stage.

His remarks remain a simple abberation which verges on a statement of contempt for those who seek to live their lives in some form of normality.

Then he delivers yet more concurrent sentencing which in reality will see the convicted man free in 3 1/2 years if he is of "Good Behaviour".

If this represents any realistic interpretation of Justice or even a deterrent function,then that is in the mind of Judge O`Hagan alone.

Something is very wrong here,and perhaps calling for Judge O `Hagan to justify his remarks to the general public would be a good place to begin righting them.

Zambia

3 1/2 years for causing the death of a Garda or anyone in the manner described is pretty crap.

RIP

CaseyRyback

AlekSmart - I've no doubt that presently there'll be some legal commentator along to critique your post and defend the sentence and judge's reasoning.

There's always an excuse, some explaining away.....when you're unaccountable and devoid of moral responsibility.

johnnyskeleton

psni wrote: »

Those who are killed in the line of duty - yes! Anyone who dies serving their country is, in my opinion, worthy of a posthumous pedestal.

As opposed to the rest of us plebs who don't get the special treatment?

johnnyskeleton

AlekSmart wrote: »

But,Johnnyskeleton,the learned Judge did NOT say those words.

The words reported by the Media were as posted by CaseyRyback.

"Don't be carried away by the fact that he was a garda."

As a serving member of the Judiciary who,on a daily basis, comes into contact with the best of wordsmiths,Judge O Hagan himself must realize that his use of loose terminology would be open to scrutiny.

This is why I performed a double-take when I initially read of his comments.

I honestly don't get what you're complaining about. Well, to be honest I do. You want to vent your anger and so you pick up some random part of the judge's direction and claim impropriety. He was calling on the jury not to be carried away by the fact that he was a garda. You would rather the judge said something along the lines of:

"This scumbag deliberately killed a garda. Even though it can't be proved, we all know it. Now, find him guilty so we can fry him."

etc

johnnyskeleton

CaseyRyback wrote: »

AlekSmart - I've no doubt that presently there'll be some legal commentator along to critique your post and defend the sentence and judge's reasoning.

There's always an excuse, some explaining away.....when you're unaccountable and devoid of moral responsibility.

Come on now, you can't just refuse to even think about what is happening on anything other than a superficial level and then claim anyone who does look beyond the "killed a garda, let him fry" brigade is "devoid of moral responsibility".

Zambia

@johnny

Actually it is beneficial as a whole for higher penalties to be legislated for offences relating to assaults on members of the Gardai. As opposed to members of the public.

Your average person comes into conflict situations rarely if they do not actively seek conflict. However the Gardai do, the very fact that you may receive a higher sentence for assualting the gardai could affect the judgement of people and convince them to give up. This offers gardai a degree of protection without any use of actual force.

This is better for all involved as in a lot of cases people assaulting the gardai come of worse. The ideal scenario is when the Gardai arrive the offenders simply give up, thinking if I fight these guys I'm in a world of sh1t.

Assaulting members of the ES deprives the community as a whole. If some drunken twat decks the doctor attending the ER on a saturday night how many people are made wait even longer? If a mob assualts the Paramedics it takes them off the road.

I'm not that over awed at the Judges comments at all. The jury was being asked to decide was he guilty of Manslaughter and he clearly was.

Shield

A poor argument if I may say so. Who said anything about "plebs"? That's your word, not mine. The fact that you've had to resort to a straw man argument speaks volumes. Here is a man who died in the service of his country - in other words, he died protecting men just like you, and you would deny him posthumous recognition.

The man is a hero in my book and he deserves his pedestal, special treatment, whatever you want to call it.

I only wish he was alive to enjoy it.

I would plead with you to show some compassion.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As opposed to the rest of us plebs who don't get the special treatment?

CaseyRyback

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Come on now, you can't just refuse to even think about what is happening on anything other than a superficial level and then claim anyone who does look beyond the "killed a garda, let him fry" brigade is "devoid of moral responsibility".

Again you're putting words in peoples mouths to bolster your own flawed argument. I never used the term 'killed a garda, let him fry'.

To make it a bit clearer for you the words used in this case that are of concern are:

"Don't be carried away by the fact that he was a garda."

If you are capable of defending such a statement, that I suggest is totally devoid of any moral responsibility, then obviously you must be of the same mindset as the judge.

This direction is wholly unacceptable and shameful when voiced by someone on the Bench.

AlekSmart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I honestly don't get what you're complaining about. Well, to be honest I do. You want to vent your anger and so you pick up some random part of the judge's direction and claim impropriety. He was calling on the jury not to be carried away by the fact that he was a garda. You would rather the judge said something along the lines of:

"This scumbag deliberately killed a garda. Even though it can't be proved, we all know it. Now, find him guilty so we can fry him."

etc

Again Johnnyskeleton,I would defer somewhat to your somewhat more intimate knowledge of the law and it`s administration.

However I would clarify that,as one of your actual "plebs",I am not merely complaining for the thrill of it,nor am I "rathering" that the Judge said anything...I do however strenuously object to the particular wording the Judge DID use.

I am,in fact agreeing with Judge O `Hanlon when he advises that his function is not to impose vengance upon the convicted man.

I would have thought,perhaps wrongly,that the charge of Manslaughter arises due to the inability to prove that the accused "deliberately" killed the Garda ?

However that issue surely was for the Jury to adjudicate upon without the Judge`s,what I would term,snide,comment ringing in their ears.

The issue,for me,is the Judges singling out of Gardai as a group which juries are now empowered to apply a lesser degree of consideration to.

The more I read the sentance,the more it baffles me,as it indicates that this Judge was not taking his own advice and acting in a dispassionate manner at all.

If anything,I would consider it to be displaying a level of bias against those who choose to become members of the force ?

I`m actually forming the opinion that this case and specifically the Judge`s words should now be the focus of a public inquiry or the basis for a full appeal by the DPP ?

Certainly,were I a member of the Gardai,I would be seeking very clear representation on the issue by the GRA or the Dept of Justice !!

johnnyskeleton

Zambia wrote: »

@johnny

Actually it is beneficial as a whole for higher penalties to be legislated for offences relating to assaults on members of the Gardai. As opposed to members of the public.

I broadly agree. But in the absence of such legislation, save for capital murder, what is a judge supposed to do? Bend the law or create a new offence out of thin air? Those days are gone.

Zambia wrote: »

Your average person comes into conflict situations rarely if they do not actively seek conflict. However the Gardai do, the very fact that you may receive a higher sentence for assualting the gardai could affect the judgement of people and convince them to give up. This offers gardai a degree of protection without any use of actual force.

Unlikely. People are either prepared to assault a garda or they are not. An increased penalty will not necessarily disuade them. Also, I find it difficult that you are suggesting that a garda who intervenes is somehow in a more privileged position than an ordinary citizen who intervenes.

Zambia wrote: »

This is better for all involved as in a lot of cases people assaulting the gardai come of worse. The ideal scenario is when the Gardai arrive the offenders simply give up, thinking if I fight these guys I'm in a world of sh1t.

Somewhat illogical thinking there. Surely if increased sentence was a deterrent, it would make sense to impose higher penalties for everything. That way, they wouldn't commit the offence in the first place. Sadly, that is not how the world works.

Zambia wrote: »

Assaulting members of the ES deprives the community as a whole. If some drunken twat decks the doctor attending the ER on a saturday night how many people are made wait even longer? If a mob assualts the Paramedics it takes them off the road.

In a way you are proving my point. What makes a garda more special than the doctor, or the fireman, or the plumber, or the barman, or anyone else besides. Gardai already have lots of statutory powers, training to deal with violent situations and the support of other gardai to back them up. You are arguing for an additional unofficial rule that persons who injure gardai get a higher sentence. But that is a strange argument to make in this case - the jury (for whatever reason) found that he was not guilty of manslaughter, and for dangerous driving 7 years with 1 suspended is a very long sentence compared to other cases, especially on a guilty plea. So what exactly are you saying that went wrong in this case?

Zambia wrote: »

I'm not that over awed at the Judges comments at all. The jury was being asked to decide was he guilty of Manslaughter and he clearly was.

The judge set out the law as it stands - a garda is a person like any other. You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to say that he clearly was guilty of manslaughter when a jury of 12 ordinary people found that he was not. Unless you were in court, you do not know the full extent of the evidence. Unless you were there, you don't know what happened. It seems that you are falling into the exact trap that the judge was warning against - assuming that because a garda died, the person who drove into him must be guilty of manslaughter without any reference to the evidence.

psni wrote: »

A poor argument if I may say so. Who said anything about "plebs"? That's your word, not mine. The fact that you've had to resort to a straw man argument speaks volumes. Here is a man who died in the service of his country - in other words, he died protecting men just like you, and you would deny him posthumous recognition.

The man is a hero in my book and he deserves his pedestal, special treatment, whatever you want to call it.

I only wish he was alive to enjoy it.

I would plead with you to show some compassion.

I'm not saying anything about the man, and no one is saying he doesn't deserve acclaim outside of the court. But inside the court he is to be treated as anyone else would be treated. That is the law. It is that way for good reason and, as set out above, the jury for whatever reason decided that the charge of manslaughter was not made out. My comments were in response to AlekSmart's comments that the judge was somehow disparaging the garda by not telling the jury to treat him more favourably than anyone else. So if anything, you are the one making the straw man argument.

CaseyRyback wrote: »

"Don't be carried away by the fact that he was a garda."

If you are capable of defending such a statement, that I suggest is totally devoid of any moral responsibility, then obviously you must be of the same mindset as the judge.

This direction is wholly unacceptable and shameful when voiced by someone on the Bench.

Why? Should he have said the opposite - "Make sure that you place specific emphasis on the fact that he was a garda". Is that, in your view, a fairer direction to the jury?

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would have thought,perhaps wrongly,that the charge of Manslaughter arises due to the inability to prove that the accused "deliberately" killed the Garda ?

However that issue surely was for the Jury to adjudicate upon without the Judge`s,what I would term,snide,comment ringing in their ears.

The issue,for me,is the Judges singling out of Gardai as a group which juries are now empowered to apply a lesser degree of consideration to.

The more I read the sentance,the more it baffles me,as it indicates that this Judge was not taking his own advice and acting in a dispassionate manner at all.

If anything,I would consider it to be displaying a level of bias against those who choose to become members of the force ?

Quite the opposite, it is quite obvious that the judge was telling the jury to treat the garda as though he were any other person. And he is right, because the jury should not allow their personal feelings towards members of an garda siochana affect them one way or another. So he is telling the man who loves gardai not to get carried away with that love, just as he is telling the man who hates gardai not to get carried away with that hate.

Honestly, this thread seems to be full of misguided and unchannelled anger. People seem to be looking to blame someone - anyone - and the judge and the jury are an obvious, but strange, target. It is a tragedy that a garda was killed in the course of his duties and the person directly responsible for that has gotten a 7 year prison sentence with one year suspended. I honestly don't know what people expect to happen, but no one seems to be able to suggest why this is a travesty of justice. Instead, we have some bizzare fixation on the judge's instruction to the jury that they should not be overly swayed by fact that the deceased was a garda and not just an ordinary person. The idea that he should have done otherwise is offensive to ordinary persons because it suggests that there should be one law for private citizens and another for gardai.

pah

Having read your post johnnyskeleton you make some good points and on reflection I'm inclined to agree with you.

The problem with the case I suppose was that the accused was prosecuted for manslaughter (of another person) and not manslaughter (of a Garda in the course of their duty)

The idea that he should have done otherwise is offensive to ordinary persons because it suggests that there should be one law for private citizens and another for gardai.

TBH there should be an offence of unlawful killing of a person in the course of their legal duty

This would cover all ES personell and any member of the public who intervened in a legal capacity.

There should be offences covering the varying levels of assault also covering this IMO

johnnyskeleton

pah wrote: »

TBH there should be an offence of unlawful killing of a person in the course of their legal duty

This would cover all ES personell and any member of the public who intervened in a legal capacity.

There should be offences covering the varying levels of assault also covering this IMO

There is capital murder and there used to be felony murder (i.e. a person is killed as a direct consequence of committing a felony). I'm not sure if felony murder has survived but the DPP doesn't seem to have the desire or funding to test it out. In my view, this would have been a good case to test it out in.

I agree that the lack of a capital manslaughter type offence is a problem, there arguably should be at a minimum a rule that if a garda is killed by a person he is trying to apprehend then that person is liable to conviction for murder (whether it should be capital murder or not is a different story).

Similarly, we are also lacking in an offence of careless driving causing death.

However, it is also difficult to draw the line. Should a s.2 assault against a garda be more serious than a s.2 assault against someone else? Assault causing harm? etc? At what point do we draw the cut off of this distinction? Should it also apply to a civilian engaged in citizens arrest or assisting the gardai? Should it apply to witnesses?

I think realistically it should be confined to fatal injuries cases, and in those it should be broader than mere assault. The fact of dangerous driving or other recklessness should be enough to convict of a felony murder style offence.

But let's be clear on one thing - a judge applies the law as it stands, not as it ought to be and certainly not as certain commentators would like it to be. If people are dissatisfied with this case, they should ask themselves what exactly they are unhappy with and why. I struggle to understand why people criticise jurys - it is similar to the way that people criticise voters, by not realising that they themselves fall into the same group.

salonfire

I'm quite disturbed by the hang em and flog em attitude of serving members here, without any basis in fact.

12 ordinary people all decided he wasn't guilty of mansluaghter.

I do feel that this sentence is too short though - that concurrent thing is a load of crap.

CaseyRyback

One might wonder that were Garda McCallion the son of a judge would such a flippant comment have been made and his role so easily dismissed.

The disconnect between ordinary people (the plebs, is that the official legal term johnnyskeleton?) and the upper tier of the legal profession who play clever somantics whilst Rome burns is never more apparent than here in this case.

Oh to have the luxury of a professional moral vacuum, removed from reality, a very well paid professional moral vacuum no less.

johnnyskeleton

CaseyRyback wrote: »

One might wonder that were Garda McCallion the son of a judge would such a flippant comment have been made and his role so easily dismissed.

The disconnect between ordinary people (the plebs, is that the official legal term johnnyskeleton?) and the upper tier of the legal profession who play clever somantics whilst Rome burns is never more apparent than here in this case.

Oh to have the luxury of a professional moral vacuum, removed from reality, a very well paid professional moral vacuum no less.

What exactly is it that you are complaining about?

CaseyRyback

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What exactly is it that you are complaining about?

"Don't be carried away by the fact that he was a Garda."

Do you understand why this sentence is offensive to some? Its not a difficult concept to grasp.

Zambia

@ Johnny True I dont know all the facts of the case. I do however know this guy drove his car at speed towards a Garda Car. It was this event that caused or lead to the Gardas death.

To me that makes him guilty of causing the death of the Garda. What are the facts I am missing that the Jury heard? Seriously I would be interested to know.

Hes not guilty thats what I think went wrong with this case.

My other pionts are detracting from the general topic so I will leave them for later.

AlekSmart

CaseyRyback wrote: »

"Don't be carried away by the fact that he was a Garda."

Do you understand why this sentence is offensive to some? Its not a difficult concept to grasp.

It may not be a difficult concept for "plebians" to grasp but the very fact that a Judge found it so easy to make such a remark in a charge to jury remains of some concern to me.

As I posted earlier,johnnyskeleton is quite obviously well versed in legalese and appears to empathise with the Judges direction.

Again,as I posted earlier,I do not have any problem with the Jury process or it`s outcome in this case.

The sentencing in this case is pretty much par for the course and as Johnnyskeleton points out a 7 year tariff for Dangerous Driving causing Death is toward the top end of the scale,especially on a guilty plea,something which doubtless will occupy the minds of any barrister eyeing up avenues of appeal.

CaseyRyback

AlekSmart wrote: »

As I posted earlier,johnnyskeleton.........and appears to empathise with the Judges direction.

It is a concern that this is not some rogue bencher making an off the cuff remark but apparently sentiment shared by others 'at law'.

Profiler

CaseyRyback wrote: »

It is a concern that this is not some rogue bencher making an off the cuff remark but apparently sentiment shared by others 'at law'.

Are Judges not entitled to hold such a view in such cases?

The way I saw the Judges comments were that the Jury should not see this as a case of a member of An Garda Síochána being killed but a person, Robert McCallion, being killed.

The Jury should be no more or less likely to find the person behind the wheel of the car guilty than they should be if the person tragically killed were a plumber or a painter, or a tailor, candlestick maker.

The jury should try the case based on the facts of the case not the occupation of the victim.

CaseyRyback

If you go back a few pages and read on you'll see my points and those of others on here who don't share your view.

Interesting stance though.

AlekSmart

Profiler wrote: »

Are Judges not entitled to hold such a view in such cases? ......

.......The jury should try the case based on the facts of the case not the occupation of the victim.

Judges are entitled to hold as many views as they like,however how and when they express these "views" is,given their function,of immense interest to the greater public.

The most important aspect of Robert McCallion`s "occupation" is that it played a pivotal role in his death.

He HAD to be there.
His Killer need NOT have been there.

Once Garda McCallion was tasked with responding to the call he was then under direct order to perform his duty in accordance with his solemn Oath...much the same as a Judge.

Once Robert McCallion,the Garda,arrived on that scene he had to follow through on his committment to us all...he had no choice in that.

The convict,Jamie McGrenaghan,however had the luxury of choices at every stage in the proceedings which ultimately led to his conviction.

There were so many opportunities which Mr McGrenaghan could and should have grasped to ensure that at 04:10 on March 27th 2009,he was not abroad with malicious intent to injure innocent persons or deprive them of their lawful property,something which,it seems he had already made a career of.

Nowhere in the reports of the numerous Court Proceedings involving Mr McGrenaghan did I see any attempt to portray him as an imbicile or otherwise mentally unfit to make decisions....and decisions he did indeed make....which led to the death of Robert McCallion.

Yet,in taking a decision to become a Garda,did Robert McCallion surrender his right to a level of respect at least equal to that which our Judicial process elequently bestowed upon his killer ?

Judge O`Hagan may well be pleased with his spirited defence of his remarks,but I wonder if he actually understands the value and power of his Judicial position at all...????

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2011/02/13/we-still-phone-robbies-mobile-just-to-hear-his-voice-slain-gardas-heartbroken-family/

Garda Shane Lavelle described the moments when McGrenaghan’s red Peugeot 306 came hurtling towards them, its tyres screeching and engine accelerating.

“I will never forget the screeching of the tyres and seeing Robbie being thrown into the air and disappearing into the darkness,” he said.

Garda McCallion was thrown 15 feet into the air as McGrenaghan’s car threw him like a ragdoll into the darkness of the night and into a nearby garden.

He suffered serious head injuries and died almost two weeks later on April 7th at Dublin’s Beaumont Hospital.

"Don't be carried away by the fact that he was a Garda."

pah

I think that this could be avoided in the future by having an offence of unlawful killing of a Garda when it would be very much upon the Jury to be carried away by the fact he was a Garda.

Personally I dont think it was neccessary for the judge to say this. I have often heard judges give direction to jurys about ignoring speculation & media when deciding a verdict and to focus solely on the facts & evidence presented to the court. - This is neccessary, but to draw specific attention to Robert McCallions occupation and more or less dismiss it as irrelevant was wrong IMO. My initial reaction to this was FU*K YOU judge - he wouldnt be dead if he wasn't a Garda. It would have been enough for the judge to direct the Jury not to be swayed by emotion etc... look at the facts...Robert McCallion was killed because he was a Garda, FACT



The judge also said

“You cannot say later that ‘Oh my God what have I done’.

I wonder are they saying it now?

I wonder will they be saying it in three years time when McGrenaghan is released and they next hear his name on the news?

Also concurrent sentencing is a load of bolloks:rolleyes:



Personally AlexSmart, Garda McCallion had a choice too every time IMO. I've seen plenty people shy away from confrontation to the detriment and risk of others. The fact that Garda McCallion chose to engage in this dangerous situation when he encountered it speaks volumes of his character. It's a choice he made every day, a choice that cost him his life.

AlekSmart

pah wrote: »

.......
Personally I dont think it was neccessary for the judge to say this. I have often heard judges give direction to jurys about ignoring speculation & media when deciding a verdict and to focus solely on the facts & evidence presented to the court. - This is neccessary, but to draw specific attention to Robert McCallions occupation and more or less dismiss it as irrelevant was wrong IMO. ..... look at the facts...Robert McCallion was killed because he was a Garda, FACT


Personally AlexSmart, Garda McCallion had a choice too every time IMO. I've seen plenty people shy away from confrontation to the detriment and risk of others. The fact that Garda McCallion chose to engage in this dangerous situation when he encountered it speaks volumes of his character. It's a choice he made every day, a choice that cost him his life.

Well pah,perhaps it may be more accurate to say that garda McCallion`s choices were limited by the nature of his proffession ?

I most assuredly am not suggesting a level of Sainthood or Invincibility br available to any Garda,but by the same logic neither should a Garda have to suffer a lesser status imposed upon him/her simply for doing their duty.

To illustrate the lack of comprehension behind Judge O`Hagans remarks it is worth noting the existance of some cases involving alledgedly "Rogue" Gardai currently going through the legal process.

I would fully expect the Judges in these trials to charge the Jury to the effect of a member of the Gardai having to be judged to a far higher standard due to their chosen profession etc etc...

But you are correct,pah....time will surely tell :mad: