Define Assault

CIARAN_BOYLE

On Wednesday I was walking and was grabbed by a man wearing a hoodie with a scarf covering his face. He yelled something that I believe was a demand to give him money but due to the scarf over his mouth I am uncertain about what was said. I successfully escaped the attack.

I went to a local Garda station today to report the incident (even though no identification could be made) and was informed by the Guard at the desk that a physical grab was not an assault and not illegal.

The Guard summarized the incident as me assaulting someone who grabbed me. The grab wasn't an assault. The Guard informed that they wouldn't take any action but if my victim reported the incident they would have to take action.

Could someone refer me to a good definition of assault in Ireland.

BornToKill

Section 2 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

Delancey

Sounds very like the Garda followed the path of least resistance :rolleyes:

NoQuarter

If silent phone calls can be deemed assault, a grab certainly can!

Viarum

That scenario would very likely constitute an assault under s 2(1) of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 2007.

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.


Additionally, it would constitute battery under a trespass to the person tort action which is where a person intentionally, and without the consent of the other person, applies direct force to the body of another.


That gard was probably just a little on the lazy side and didn't want the inconvenience of pursuing what would likely turn out to be a rather fruitless endeavour.

MagicSean

Viarum wrote: »

That scenario would very likely constitute an assault under s 2(1) of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 2007.

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.


Additionally, it would constitute battery under a trespass to the person tort action which is where a person intentionally, and without the consent of the other person, applies direct force to the body of another.


That gard was probably just a little on the lazy side and didn't want the inconvenience of pursuing what would likely turn out to be a rather fruitless endeavour.

Subsection 3 is the important part here I think. Although without more information on the incident it is hard to judge. The op said he managed to escape. To me that would indicate some kind of struggle. I don't think the op is the whole story to be honest.

Hippo

Subsection 3 is to my mind designed to cover situations such as being jostled in the street etc 'in the normal conduct of daily life'. Being grabbed is certainly not such a situation.

MagicSean

Hippo wrote: »

Subsection 3 is to my mind designed to cover situations such as being jostled in the street etc 'in the normal conduct of daily life'. Being grabbed is certainly not such a situation.

It can be depending on the situation. If I was trying to get your attention and you did not appear to be able to hear me it would not be unreasonable for me to grab your arm or shoulder.

mcgarrett

Contact or not if the OP was put in fear then it is a section 2 assault.

J K

attempted robbery
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0014.html#sec14

NoQuarter

J K wrote: »

attempted robbery
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0014.html#sec14

Couldnt prove intention beyond a reasonable doubt if the OP himself didnt know what they guy shouted.

Either way OP looks like a s2 to me.

If you knew the guy and the guards were too lazy to do anything you can take a civil case for battery.

Marcusm

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It can be depending on the situation. If I was trying to get your attention and you did not appear to be able to hear me it would not be unreasonable for me to grab your arm or shoulder.

I don't know where you live but I certainly think it's very unreasonable for someone to grab you to get your attention. If they grabbed you to stop you from unwittingly walking in front of a moving vehicle, I could accept it but to get you simple attention; no way Jose!

Shelflife

what i find bizararre here is the guard not wanting to do anything about it.

we had according to the op an attempted robbery and the guard tells him to let it drop otherwise he(op) could be the one getting into trouble.

i have the utmost respect for the gardai but this crap annoys me.

attempted robbery/mugging and its not even checked out, what happens if the next time the mugger "ups" his game and brings a knife ????

mikemac

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

was informed by the Guard at the desk that a physical grab was not an assault and not illegal.

Yes under the Lazy Garda (better things to be doing)Act of 1955

Won't help now OP but the great thing about a hierarchy is you can escalate.
You ask the garda for the sergeant and you ask the sergeant for the superintendent

MagicSean

Marcusm wrote: »

I don't know where you live but I certainly think it's very unreasonable for someone to grab you to get your attention. If they grabbed you to stop you from unwittingly walking in front of a moving vehicle, I could accept it but to get you simple attention; no way Jose!

Well I don't know where you live but if you would consider someone grabbing your arm to get your attention an assault then you must all be walking on egg shells around there. Sounds like an ambulance chasers paradise.

Shelflife wrote: »

what i find bizararre here is the guard not wanting to do anything about it.

we had according to the op an attempted robbery and the guard tells him to let it drop otherwise he(op) could be the one getting into trouble.

i have the utmost respect for the gardai but this crap annoys me.

attempted robbery/mugging and its not even checked out, what happens if the next time the mugger "ups" his game and brings a knife ????

From the opening post it is doubtful it was a robbery. The op doesn't know what was said and doesn't say anything about the guy trying to take anything from him. He could have been asking for change or directions for all we know. If the Garda told him he may also have committed an offence it is obvious that some of the story is missing. I would say it is likely the op got scared and used force to break the mans grip, possibly injuring him, and then proceeded to the Garda station to report the matter.

Shelflife

Seanbeag1 you ae correct that we are getting only one side of the story, but in fairness if jo public (giving the op benefit of the doubt here) feels that he has been assaulted and was in fear of being hurt/robbed surely the guards have a duty to take details.

My wife was once verbally abused and threatened in our shop, we went to report it and we were told that because it was in a shop there was nothing they could do (under the couldnt be arsed legislation) the same when we report shoplifting.

Had a break in recently and was told not to touch the entry point (hole in roof) until they scene of crimes turned up---- still waiting.

this is what frustrated Joe public.

dev100

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It can be depending on the situation. If I was trying to get your attention and you did not appear to be able to hear me it would not be unreasonable for me to grab your arm or shoulder.

If for talks sake Sean If I wanted to get a guards attention and grabbed a guard by the arm or shoulder how long would it take to take to have a pair of cuffs put on ones person.

MagicSean

Shelflife wrote: »

Seanbeag1 you ae correct that we are getting only one side of the story, but in fairness if jo public (giving the op benefit of the doubt here) feels that he has been assaulted and was in fear of being hurt/robbed surely the guards have a duty to take details.

My wife was once verbally abused and threatened in our shop, we went to report it and we were told that because it was in a shop there was nothing they could do (under the couldnt be arsed legislation) the same when we report shoplifting.

Had a break in recently and was told not to touch the entry point (hole in roof) until they scene of crimes turned up---- still waiting.

this is what frustrated Joe public.

Calling someone a name is not an offence. Shop lifting is. Your adding apples to oranges there. Many people believe they have been the victim of a crime when in fact they have not. For example, I had a person come into me to report their landlord had turned off their electricity because they hadn't paid rent in a year. They believed this was a breach of their constitutional rights. Should I have take a statement from him even thought there was no actual crime?

It is quite possible that what the op told the Garda was clearly not an assault. In addition, when people report an assault it is very often the case that they have also committed an assault in the same incident. When informed of this they generally decide not to proceed. They usually think that because they reported it first they are automatically the victim. I'm not saying that this is the case for the op but it is something to consider.

MagicSean

dev100 wrote: »

If for talks sake Sean If I wanted to get a guards attention and grabbed a guard by the arm or shoulder how long would it take to take to have a pair of cuffs put on ones person.

Depends on why you wanted him. If you grabbed his arm and then asked for directions I doubt he would be too put out. If you tried to rob him he may be slightly unhappy with you.

Shelflife

Fair enough seanbeag1, but if we take the ops example where he says he was grabbed by a masked person in an agressive manner and feared that he was being robbed surerly he is entitled to defend himself !!!

if he was jumped and fought them off, ran away and reported it to the guards it should be taken seriously.

Btw it wasnt name calling she was threatened with physical violence and harm.

dev100

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Depends on why you wanted him. If you grabbed his arm and then asked for directions I doubt he would be too put out. If you tried to rob him he may be slightly unhappy with you.

Well personally I wouldnt grab a guard by the arm nor would I expect to be grabbed either


Well say in an instance a guard in the course of his duty is arresting someone and a mate of the person is remenstrating with the guard and grabs him by the arm. Just to get attention of guard. Would you honestly say that wouldnt be a quick trip to the barracks?

Thats a funny comment a guard getting robbed and being slightly unhappy:)

MagicSean

Shelflife wrote: »

Fair enough seanbeag1, but if we take the ops example where he says he was grabbed by a masked person in an agressive manner and feared that he was being robbed surerly he is entitled to defend himself !!!

if he was jumped and fought them off, ran away and reported it to the guards it should be taken seriously.

Btw it wasnt name calling she was threatened with physical violence and harm.

If we take the example the op gave, the assaulter did nothing aggressive other than the original grab. He said something the op did not hear and then the op "escaped". And he was wearing a scarf that covered his mouth. It's possible the op is of a nervous disposition and got scared. In my experience the first account of a story is usually far from accurate.

Afaik a threat is not illegal unless the victim believes the offender has the capacity and intention to follow through.

Anyway, I accept that there are lazy Gardaí who try to discourage reporting of crimes. And it's often the other Gardaí who end up picking up the slack. My point is that in the ops case, as he described it, I would find it hard to class this as an assault and definitely not a robbery. Perhaps with a fuller account it would be different.

dev100 wrote: »

Well personally I wouldnt grab a guard by the arm nor would I expect to be grabbed either


Well say in an instance a guard in the course of his duty is arresting someone and a mate of the person is remenstrating with the guard and grabs him by the arm. Just to get attention of guard. Would you honestly say that wouldnt be a quick trip to the barracks?

Thats a funny comment a guard getting robbed and being slightly unhappy:)

Clearly you've never been on duty outside a nightclub on a Saturday night. If I lifted everyone who touched me I'd never get out of court. Also, tourists will often grab you because they have no idea how to address you to call you.

If someone where to grab a Garda as he was arresting a person he would get strong advice to move on. If he persisted he would most likely be arrested.

valleyoftheunos

I think you are way out on this one Seanbag, the OP was grabbed by a hooded man disguising his appearance with a scarf. I would suggest that such a grab is certainly capable of constituting an assault as set out in s.2 of the 1997 Act and by telling him that a physical grab was not an assault the Guard to whom the OP attempted to report the incident gave him incorrect information.

I don't think there is anything in the original post to lead you to question the OP's truthfulness in the manner you have. The OP has set out an account of events and asked if he may have been the victim of an assault, you have disregarded his account utterly and on no basis whatsoever have set him out as the likely perpetrator of an assault. Were the OP to have committed an assault in extricating himself from the initial assault perpetrated upon him the defence of self defence would be available to him.

Reloc8

What the OP alleges certainly constitutes an assault, if proven.

The Garda clearly had no interest, for whatever reason, in investigating it and in fact took an active step to dissuade the OP from pursuing it further.

MagicSean

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

On Wednesday I was walking and was grabbed by a man wearing a hoodie with a scarf covering his face. He yelled something that I believe was a demand to give him money but due to the scarf over his mouth I am uncertain about what was said. I successfully escaped the attack.

There is no way in hell these three lines are enough to justify a charge of assault or attempted robbery. There is clearly a lot that has been left out.

Bosco boy

Shelflife wrote: »

Seanbeag1 you ae correct that we are getting only one side of the story, but in fairness if jo public (giving the op benefit of the doubt here) feels that he has been assaulted and was in fear of being hurt/robbed surely the guards have a duty to take details.

My wife was once verbally abused and threatened in our shop, we went to report it and we were told that because it was in a shop there was nothing they could do (under the couldnt be arsed legislation) the same when we report shoplifting.

Had a break in recently and was told not to touch the entry point (hole in roof) until they scene of crimes turned up---- still waiting.

this is what frustrated Joe public.

did you consider ringing back to see why someone did not come or are you happier not to so that you can tell everyone about it. Or is the hole really in your story!

Monty Burnz

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I went to a local Garda station today to report the incident (even though no identification could be made) and was informed by the Guard at the desk that a physical grab was not an assault and not illegal.

Don't accept this bullsh!t. The Gardai have a vested interest in under-reporting crime - firstly it makes them look like they are doing a better job, and secondly it saves them having to do work.

I was jumped by a couple of guys some years ago, one of whom punched me when I wasn't looking, knocking me out for a second or two. I came to on my knees and went for the guy in front of me to buy enough time to clear my head. He got a fright and backed off, and then the two of them ran off. I was lucky to escape with no broken teeth, but my face swelled up hugely, and I was messed up for days. On another day I'd have fallen backwards and smashed my head off the ground, with god knows what consequences. And the scummers who did it to me might keep on doing it until they do kill someone.

I called the Gardai when the guys ran off. They turned up at the spot (Richmond St. FFS - about 2 minutes from Harcourt St.!) about 20 minutes later. They played the whole thing down, and asked if I wanted to report it in a tone that suggested that I'd be wasting everybody's time. I told them 'of course I want to f*cking report it' - otherwise for official purposes, the attack would never have taken place, and they could report on the great job they were doing keeping central Dublin a safe place to walk.

NEVER be fobbed off like this by lazy and uninterested public service time servers who regard the public as an annoyance, rather than as the whole reason that their job exists.

Sorry for the rant...

shaneybaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Don't accept this bullsh!t. The Gardai have a vested interest in under-reporting crime - firstly it makes them look like they are doing a better job, and secondly it saves them having to do work.

I'm not a garda but surely by catching more criminals and successfully prosecuting them it would make it seem that they are doing a better job (if it is case they are trying to avoid work) If they don't prosecute anyone the figures would show less and less crime and the less need for overtime and any more gardaí!

Monty Burnz

shaneybaby wrote: »

I'm not a garda but surely by catching more criminals and successfully prosecuting them it would make it seem that they are doing a better job (if it is case they are trying to avoid work) If they don't prosecute anyone the figures would show less and less crime and the less need for overtime and any more gardaí!

There are two ways of doing it - catching and prosecuting criminals, or under-reporting crime. I'm sure they are not all the same, but plenty seem to prefer plan 'B'. And if they can discourage you from reporting a crime, they can go back to the crossword, or cruising around - none of that tedious paperwork.

shaneybaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There are two ways of doing it - catching and prosecuting criminals, or under-reporting crime. I'm sure they are not all the same, but plenty seem to prefer plan 'B'. And if they can discourage you from reporting a crime, they can go back to the crossword, or cruising around - none of that tedious paperwork.

?? I have no interest in defending them but i still don't see how under-reporting crime figures can benefit them? Why would someone join the gardaí to do crosswords? there are plenty of security jobs out there where they are perfectly happy for you to sit in a hut all day.

It's really weird the way some threads are slating the gardaí for applying the law so vigorously as it is (speeding, mobile phones) and others where they're not applying it so vigorously (2 posts above). They really can't win by the looks of things.

MagicSean

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There are two ways of doing it - catching and prosecuting criminals, or under-reporting crime. I'm sure they are not all the same, but plenty seem to prefer plan 'B'. And if they can discourage you from reporting a crime, they can go back to the crossword, or cruising around - none of that tedious paperwork.

How would under-reporting crime benefit a regular Garda though? It just makes it look like he does nothing.

Monty Burnz

shaneybaby wrote: »

?? I have no interest in defending them but i still don't see how under-reporting crime figures can benefit them? Why would someone join the gardaí to do crosswords? there are plenty of security jobs out there where they are perfectly happy for you to sit in a hut all day.

It's really weird the way some threads are slating the gardaí for applying the law so vigorously as it is (speeding, mobile phones) and others where they're not applying it so vigorously (2 posts above). They really can't win by the looks of things.

If you are seriously assaulted on the street, you want the Gardai to appear to give a toss. The ones who (eventually) turned up didn't, and didn't even want me to report the assault.

I can't explain all their motives, I can only report what happened and tell you the only way that I can rationalise it.

shaneybaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If you are seriously assaulted on the street, you want the Gardai to appear to give a toss. The ones who (eventually) turned up didn't, and didn't even want me to report the assault.

I can't explain all their motives, I can only report what happened and tell you the only way that I can rationalise it.

Ah yeah man i wasn't saying you were lying or anything. there's bad eggs in everyjob and i'm sure the gardaí are no different. There's plenty of situations like that where guys don't ever get up.

Shelflife

Bosco boy wrote: »

did you consider ringing back to see why someone did not come or are you happier not to so that you can tell everyone about it. Or is the hole really in your story!

Bosco i didnt ring about it because

1 i didnt want to get the young guard who came out and went into the premises with me into trouble, i really appreciate when the any alarm call outs are answered quickly and just in case i didnt want to land him in it.

2. i didnt think that any worth while evidence would be collected at that stage and we needed to get the roof closed quickly due to our wonderful weather.

at that stage all that i was going to do was get someone into trouble.

You can pull your horns back in there Bosco.

Fwiw, i believe that the apathy shown by some gardai is a direct result of the amount of crap that they have to put up in court from some of the judicary, the burden of proof is unreal and the punishment given out is very soft.

in essence you can understand gardai not wanting to persue smaller crimes as even if they are found guilty they end up getting mickey mouse punishments so it would appear that it was a waste of time.

One well known shoplifter in our area was once told by a judge not to go into either of the shops where she was caught again

---

great dont steal off johnny but work away in shleflifes place.

littlemac1980

Well in my view, there is simply no doubt here, based on what you have described OP that an assault had in fact taken place.

Its unfortunate that the Guard you dealt with appeared to take a different view, but in the absence of additional information, which could only come to light were the alleged perpetrator apprehended and interrogated as to his reason, if any, for his action, a judge could only find that an assault had taken place.

A substantial amount of case law, and statutory interpretation, would support this view.

Being grabbed by a hooded masked stranger, on a street, in a manner that put you in immediate fear for your safety is the most straight forward form of assault that there is.

MagicSean

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Well in my view, there is simply no doubt here, based on what you have described OP that an assault had in fact taken place.

Its unfortunate that the Guard you dealt with appeared to take a different view, but in the absence of additional information, which could only come to light were the alleged perpetrator apprehended and interrogated as to his reason, if any, for his action, a judge could only find that an assault had taken place.

A substantial amount of case law, and statutory interpretation, would support this view.

Being grabbed by a hooded masked stranger, on a street, in a manner that put you in immediate fear for your safety is the most straight forward form of assault that there is.

No it isn't. Being punched in the face would be the most straight forward form of assault.

You say there is no doubt that the op was assaulted. So if it turns out this was a homeless man asking for change or for help you would not be able to accept this? If it turns out this man was trying to stop the op from walking on some dog **** and his kindness was responded to with physical violence? Saying that there is no doubt and basing this solely on a three line description of an event is crazy.

littlemac1980

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

No it isn't. Being punched in the face would be the most straight forward form of assault.

You say there is no doubt that the op was assaulted. So if it turns out this was a homeless man asking for change or for help you would not be able to accept this? If it turns out this man was trying to stop the op from walking on some dog **** and his kindness was responded to with physical violence? Saying that there is no doubt and basing this solely on a three line description of an event is crazy.

Well equally so.

I agree there's another side to the story, but you'd have to agree the role of the Gardaí is to take bona fide complaints of a criminal nature, and to carry out their public duty to investigate those complaints.

It is not the role of the Executive to Interpret Legislation

The wording of the statute is quite clear, and the OP's complaint was sincere.

It is all well and good offering explanations as to the circumstances that may have existed, but that is pure speculation. The purpose of a garda investigation is to determine facts, not to speculate. Proposing defences based on those facts is the role of Lawyers not the Guards.

valleyoftheunos

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

No it isn't. Being punched in the face would be the most straight forward form of assault.

You say there is no doubt that the op was assaulted. So if it turns out this was a homeless man asking for change or for help you would not be able to accept this? If it turns out this man was trying to stop the op from walking on some dog **** and his kindness was responded to with physical violence? Saying that there is no doubt and basing this solely on a three line description of an event is crazy.

Any touching of the person, even the slightest touching, without consent or lawful excuse is an assault and the case law is very clear on that point. Violence, aggression, or actual harm or injury is not necessary for the offence.

Lawful excuse is very limited, self defence or defence of the OP would be the main ones so if it were a homeless man asking for change then yes it is an assault and where is the indication the op responded with violence? If he used force, he would have lawful excuse of self defence so long as it was proportionate and he honestly believed it was necessary.

To me the Original Post suggests a much different story, there was an assault, the Guard involved was presented with a report of a minor incident with no prospect of ever achieving any success or resolution to it and took the path of least resistance and sent the OP away.

shaneybaby

What kind of sentence do people think this person who assaulted the OP should have got?

Monty Burnz

shaneybaby wrote: »

What kind of sentence do people think this person who assaulted the OP should have got?

None at all. Sure let him try to mug whoever he likes, I'm sure he'll mug someone more vulnerable than the OP eventually and then we can treat it like a real crime. His first.

MagicSean

It's pointless arguing unless the op comes back and clarifies what happened, in particular what he meant by "escaped".

valleyoftheunos

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It's pointless arguing unless the op comes back and clarifies what happened, in particular what he meant by "escaped".

Not at all, the OP asked for a definition of Assault, everone but you agrees what defines an assault, as set out in s. 2 of the 1997 act.

MagicSean

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Not at all, the OP asked for a definition of Assault, everone but you agrees what defines an assault, as set out in s. 2 of the 1997 act.

I haven't challeneged the definition of assault. I have disputed wether the events as the op described them would fall under those definitions.

valleyoftheunos

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I haven't challeneged the definition of assault. I have disputed wether the events as the op described them would fall under those definitions.

I think its certain that they would and there seem to be more than few others here that agree with me. Your idea of what falls within the definition is incorrect.

MagicSean

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I think its certain that they would and there seem to be more than few others here that agree with me. Your idea of what falls within the definition is incorrect.

Not if you take into account subsection 3 which requires a certain level of intent on the part of the offender, a level which everyone has assumed based purely on the fact he wore a scarf. No wonder people hate going before a jury in this country.

valleyoftheunos

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Not if you take into account subsection 3 which requires a certain level of intent on the part of the offender, a level which everyone has assumed based purely on the fact he wore a scarf. No wonder people hate going before a jury in this country.

Subsection 3 is designed to allow touching that is acceptable in everyday life eg accidental jostling on a crowded street. I would find it grossly unacceptable for a masked man to grab my arm in all but the most exceptional circumstances, most people would.

MagicSean

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Subsection 3 is designed to allow touching that is acceptable in everyday life eg accidental jostling on a crowded street. I would find it grossly unacceptable for a masked man to grab my arm in all but the most exceptional circumstances, most people would.

By masked you of course mean a man wearing a scarf. And you have no idea what the circumstances were. Even the op doesn't.

valleyoftheunos

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

On Wednesday I was walking and was grabbed by a man wearing a hoodie with a scarf covering his face. He yelled something that I believe was a demand to give him money but due to the scarf over his mouth I am uncertain about what was said. I successfully escaped the attack...

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

By masked you of course mean a man wearing a scarf. And you have no idea what the circumstances were. Even the op doesn't.

not wearing a scarf, covering his face with it. Using it to hide his identity, as someone would a mask.

I never claimed to know anything of the circumstances I was merely referring to the exceptional circumstances I would require before I found such a grab to be acceptable.

You know exactly the same amount about the circumstances as I do and yet you jumped to the conclusion that no assault could have taken place and that the OP's account is somehow unreliable all based on a lot of "What ifs" and other possible excuses entirely of your own making.

Shelflife

Shelflife wrote: »

what i find bizararre here is the guard not wanting to do anything about it.

we had according to the op an attempted robbery and the guard tells him to let it drop otherwise he(op) could be the one getting into trouble.

i have the utmost respect for the gardai but this crap annoys me.

attempted robbery/mugging and its not even checked out, what happens if the next time the mugger "ups" his game and brings a knife ????

I had a similarly disheartening encounter with a guard when I went in to report a crime. Housemate of mine left our house a few weeks back but not before emptying all our presses of food and stealing bottles of alcohol and a number of DVDs. He then started sending me threatening messages about how he would be back sooner than I thought and would "smash my fucking face into pieces"

I went into the barracks to report this and when I told the guard I spoke to that the goods amounted to about 150 - 200 euro she told me that it's wasn't worth her time going after him for such a small sum. She also told me that I should act like an adult and resolve the situation without any help from the guards. She refused a number of times to even make a note of my complaint in her book only relenting when I told her that I would not leave the barracks until she did so. After entering the details she told me that if I came back in again to try and pursue the issue I could be in trouble for I would be wasting their time.

I was disgusted by the way she acted, I thought that given the situation the adult thing to do would be to report the theft and threats. She told me sending a text threatening someone was not a crime and if he did attack me then I should come back in.

shaneybaby

Deleted User wrote: »

I had a similarly disheartening encounter with a guard when I went in to report a crime. Housemate of mine left our house a few weeks back but not before emptying all our presses of food and stealing bottles of alcohol and a number of DVDs. He then started sending me threatening messages about how he would be back sooner than I thought and would "smash my fucking face into pieces"

I went into the barracks to report this and when I told the guard I spoke to that the goods amounted to about 150 - 200 euro she told me that it's wasn't worth her time going after him for such a small sum. She also told me that I should act like an adult and resolve the situation without any help from the guards. She refused a number of times to even make a note of my complaint in her book only relenting when I told her that I would not leave the barracks until she did so. After entering the details she told me that if I came back in again to try and pursue the issue I could be in trouble for I would be wasting their time.

I was disgusted by the way she acted, I thought that given the situation the adult thing to do would be to report the theft and threats. She told me sending a text threatening someone was not a crime and if he did attack me then I should come back in.

So did you report her to ombusman?
http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/gsoc-garda-ombudsman-complaints.htm

shaneybaby

shaneybaby wrote: »

So did you report her to ombusman?
http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/gsoc-garda-ombudsman-complaints.htm

I did.