CCTV footage

Kenny1978

Hi all,

I'm currently involved in a legal case whereby a Guard arrested me outside Bruxelles and charged me with intoxicication in a public place and abusive or threatening language with intent to cause a breach of peace. However, without getting into details the Guard used extreme force for a very minor comment in relation to his colleague looking like a fictional wizard. I was taken by surprise and it just slipped out.

Anyway, I was in court yesterday and requested CCTV footage to which the Guard (not the one who arrested me) stated no CCTV was available. My question is...should the arresting Guard have gotten CCTV from Bruxelles and is the onus not on the Guards to supply this considering there are a number of Garda cameras around the vicinity. His charge sheet and version of events bare no relation to what actually took place and CCTV will prove this. I'm back in court in 2 weeks. Thanks!

MagicSean

It's certainly a matter you should have your solicitor raise.

Was the joke worth it?

Kenny1978

Definitley not...however, I don't expect to be man handled, thrown on the ground, cuffed, and held down with a knee in the back for a harmless jest. Oh well, give a moron some power and he'll turn into a tyrant.

MagicSean

Kenny1978 wrote: »

Definitley not...however, I don't expect to be man handled, thrown on the ground, cuffed, and held down with a knee in the back for a harmless jest. Oh well, give a moron some power and he'll turn into a tyrant.

Give a moron some drink and he'll insult the wrong person.

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Give a moron some drink and he'll insult the wrong person.

that does not excuse bully boy tactics which makes the wrong person a bigger moron

Finnbar01

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Give a moron some drink and he'll insult the wrong person.

Tell that to the three Waterford Gardaí were found guilty of assault a few weeks back.

MapForJ

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Tell that to the three Waterford Gardaí were found guilty of assault a few weeks back.

the gardai can do it sober they are trained to be morons

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

that does not excuse bully boy tactics which makes the wrong person a bigger moron

Nope. But people should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. If you make a habit of hurling abuse at strangers it will come back on you eventually. I'm sure the op has made a complaint to the ombudsman. If the Garda was a moron then he can be brought to justice too.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Tell that to the three Waterford Gardaí were found guilty of assault a few weeks back.

Two were found guilty of assault. They got what they deserve.

MapForJ wrote: »

the gardai can do it sober they are trained to be morons

You have offended me sir.

Zambia

Kenny1978 wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm currently involved in a legal case whereby a Guard arrested me outside Bruxelles and charged me with intoxicication in a public place and abusive or threatening language with intent to cause a breach of peace. However, without getting into details the Guard used extreme force for a very minor comment in relation to his colleague looking like a fictional wizard. I was taken by surprise and it just slipped out.

Anyway, I was in court yesterday and requested CCTV footage to which the Guard (not the one who arrested me) stated no CCTV was available. My question is...should the arresting Guard have gotten CCTV from Bruxelles and is the onus not on the Guards to supply this considering there are a number of Garda cameras around the vicinity. His charge sheet and version of events bare no relation to what actually took place and CCTV will prove this. I'm back in court in 2 weeks. Thanks!

A intoxicication in a public place
Outside Bruxelles is a public place and you appear to the Gardai to have been drunk.

B abusive or threatening language with intent to cause a breach of peace.
The Garda considered the Language offensive and liable to cause a breach of the peace

So I don't see how CCTV footage was required to prove these facts. In general the gardas observations will do A and CCTV has no sound for B.

I note how you were arrested after you opened your mouth and decided to be smart. Police here regularly talk to people drunk on the street to assess if they can behave.

Example Cop "Gday mate your a bit unsteady on your feet there"

Option 1 Drunk "Yeap I have had a little too much, I need a cab"

Option 2 Drunk "Keep walking Harry Potter, I can take care of myself"

Option 1 and the cop generally gets you a cab, option 2 gets you locked up as you are so drunk you cant be decent.

The Garda was probably doing you a favour as if you had wandered home and encountered some biker hard nut and called to him "Alright Gandalf" he could have caved your head in.

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Nope. But people should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.

being bullied is not lawful consequence of any action. the gardai can only do their jobs and do not have the power to do what they did to op even if he was wrong.You do not kow if he makes a habit of it.At least he was drunk . the garda do not have any excuse. if a non garda did it it would be called taking law into their own hands

MapForJ

Zambia wrote: »

Option 2 Drunk "Keep walking Harry Potter, I can take care of myself"
Option 1 and the cop generally gets you a cab, option 2 gets you locked up as you are so drunk you cant be decent.

the op said the cop used extreme force. that is different from being locked up

Zambia

We only have the OP to go by it was extreme and sure wasnt he blind at the time.

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

being bullied is not lawful consequence of any action. the gardai can only do their jobs and do not have the power to do what they did to op even if he was wrong.You do not kow if he makes a habit of it.At least he was drunk . the garda do not have any excuse. if a non garda did it it would be called taking law into their own hands

I never said it was lawful. I said people shouldn't be surprised if a person reacts with force to their insults. And being drunk is not an excuse for anything.

MapForJ wrote: »

the op said the cop used extreme force. that is different from being locked up

Extreme force is just dramatic hyperbole. Excessive force may have been used alright. In which case the op can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. It doesn't alter his guilt in the original offence.

BrianD

I'd imagine that there is no obligation to secure CCTV unless it assists one side or the other. Plus I'd imagine that it would be called in to play in cases of a more serious gravity.

In this case, it seems that the breach of peace which was verbal and CCTV isn't going to add anything to this process.

If the allegations that you make about mistreatment were the subject matter of the case then CCTV could be used and could be an important plank in the case.

The CCTV is pretty much irrelevant as you've acknowledged the exchange took place - if you have denied it took place in court then you have publicly acknowledged it took place here. How you were arrested after that and how much force was used does not have any bearing on the charges that have been made against you.

source

Kenny1978 wrote: »

Definitley not...however, I don't expect to be man handled, thrown on the ground, cuffed, and held down with a knee in the back for a harmless jest. Oh well, give a moron some power and he'll turn into a tyrant.

Could it be that when you were arrested, you thought that you shouldn't be arrested for the comment, and when the Garda went to arrest you that you resisted. Which led to the Garda using force to arrest you?

I only ask this because from the tone of the post I've quoted, "I don't expect to be man handled," and also from previous experience. When a person is being arrested and they come out with a comment like the above, they usually try to pull away from the arresting member and the result is the use of force to make the arrest.

This is often perceived by the arrested person as being excessive. However on the part of the member, training kicks in and the person resisting gets put on the ground where the member can more easily complete the arrest. It might seem excessive to the untrained eye but is the right thing to do.

I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but I'm saying that the above is possibly what did happen, judging from experience, the tone in the OP and the fact that there's two sides to every story.

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I never said it was lawful. I said people shouldn't be surprised if a person reacts with force to their insults. And being drunk is not an excuse for anything.



Extreme force is just dramatic hyperbole. Excessive force may have been used alright. In which case the op can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. It doesn't alter his guilt in the original offence.

is that the issue? how do you know whatextreme force meansd in this situation? were you there?

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I never said it was lawful. I said people shouldn't be surprised if a person reacts with force to their insults. And being drunk is not an excuse for anything.



Extreme force is just dramatic hyperbole. Excessive force may have been used alright. In which case the op can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. It doesn't alter his guilt in the original offence.

gardai do not have that power. that woud be punishment, that is for the judge

MapForJ

source wrote: »

Could it be that when you were arrested, you thought that you shouldn't be arrested for the comment, and when the Garda went to arrest you that you resisted. Which led to the Garda using force to arrest you?

I only ask this because from the tone of the post I've quoted, "I don't expect to be man handled," and also from previous experience. When a person is being arrested and they come out with a comment like the above, they usually try to pull away from the arresting member and the result is the use of force to make the arrest.

This is often perceived by the arrested person as being excessive. However on the part of the member, training kicks in and the person resisting gets put on the ground where the member can more easily complete the arrest. It might seem excessive to the untrained eye but is the right thing to do.

I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but I'm saying that the above is possibly what did happen, judging from experience, the tone in the OP and the fact that there's two sides to every story.

cobblers

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

is that the issue? how do you know whatextreme force meansd in this situation? were you there?

Because I know what the word extreme means? Do you?

MapForJ wrote: »

gardai do not have that power. that woud be punishment, that is for the judge

I never said they had that power. I said people shouldn't be surprised if someone reacts with violence to their insults.

MapForJ wrote: »

cobblers

No it isn't.

source

MapForJ wrote: »

cobblers

I'm sorry, It would appear you missed the part where that post was directed at the OP.

If you have an opinion on what I wrote, please feel free to expand, for me "cobblers" doesn't really present a good argument.

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Because I know what the word extreme means? Do you?



I never said they had that power. I said people shouldn't be surprised if someone reacts with violence to their insults.



No it isn't.

by whose definition? How do you know what the OP meant by it. Even if you are right in the definition you do not know it was not used , unless you were there. Were you?

MapForJ

source wrote: »

I'm sorry, It would appear you missed the part where that post was directed at the OP.

If you have an opinion on what I wrote, please feel free to expand, for me "cobblers" doesn't really present a good argument.

the highlighted part was cobblers,nonsense ,excuse making for an apparent abuse of power

source

MapForJ wrote: »

the highlighted part was cobblers,nonsense ,excuse making for an apparent abuse of power

Really so what you're saying is you believe that a member of AGS shouldn't be allowed to use force on someone who is resisting arrest?????

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

by whose definition? How do you know what the OP meant by it. Even if you are right in the definition you do not know it was not used , unless you were there. Were you?

Extreme force would be the use of deadly weapons.

MapForJ

source wrote: »

Really so what you're saying is you believe that a member of AGS shouldn't be allowed to use force on someone who is resisting arrest?????

where did he say he resisted arrest? he said he made a smart comment. The response described was not reasonable

source

MapForJ wrote: »

where did he say he resisted arrest? he said he made a smart comment. The response described was not reasonable

Where in my post did I say that's what did happen? I asked a question, nothing more. You jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

In fact I even said:

I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but I'm saying that the above is possibly what did happen, judging from experience, the tone in the OP and the fact that there's two sides to every story.

Also your last post that quoted my first post in this thread, was misquoting me, as the section you quoted requires the previous paragraph to be read in context.

MapForJ

source wrote: »

Where in my post did I say that's what did happen? I asked a question, nothing more. You jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

In fact I even said:



Also your last post that quoted my first post in this thread, was misquoting me, as the section you quoted requires the previous paragraph to be read in context.

me too

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

me too

No you didn't. You said all Gardaí were morons and when a poster explained how and why force is used you called it "cobblers"

MapForJ wrote: »

the gardai can do it sober they are trained to be morons

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

No you didn't. You said all Gardaí were morons and when a poster explained how and why force is used you called it "cobblers"

so, you said people are morons. he did not explain why force was used he made an excuse for the force that was used according to the OP

how and why force is used you called it "cobblers"

because i thought and still think it is cobblers defending agarda who lost his head and abused his power. That does not mean the OP is right.

source

MapForJ wrote: »

so, you said people are morons. he did not explain why force was used he made an excuse for the force that was used according to the OP
because i thought and still think it is cobblers defending agarda who lost his head and abused his power. That does not mean the OP is right.

As I said, and you seem to have conveniently forgotten, there's two sides to every story. You're presuming that the OP who only has 2 posts, both on this thread and hasn't been seen since, is telling the truth.

I explained use of force giving examples from the OP and using personal experiences. My explanation is accurate, and I'm not making excuses for anyone. If the member was in the wrong then he deserves to be reported because he is bringing my profession into disrepute. I however don't believe the OP and have explained why in my response.

BrianD

Getting back to the point.

There is no call for CCTV unless the defendant maintains that he was not at scene or he did not even speak to the Gardai in question. It seems clear that he is denying both. Therefore CCTV not required.

His complaint about treatment upon and after arrest is separate to the charges. If he has the a complaint then the cctv would come into play.

MapForJ

source wrote: »

As I said, and you seem to have conveniently forgotten, there's two sides to every story. You're presuming that the OP who only has 2 posts, both on this thread and hasn't been seen since, is telling the truth.

I explained use of force giving examples from the OP and using personal experiences. My explanation is accurate, and I'm not making excuses for anyone. If the member was in the wrong then he deserves to be reported because he is bringing my profession into disrepute. I however don't believe the OP and have explained why in my response.

in your opinion

from the OP and using personal experiences

you wer not personally at the scene so do not know what forcewas used. neither was i. going by op description the force was in my opinion excessive and an example of a garda abusing his power. garda only can use the force necessary and i do not buy your

This is often perceived by the arrested person as being excessive.

how do you know how the person perceives the force?

source

MapForJ wrote: »

in your opinion
you wer not personally at the scene so do not know what forcewas used. neither was i. going by op description the force was in my opinion excessive and an example of a garda abusing his power. garda only can use the force necessary and i do not buy your how do you know how the person perceives the force?

WOW you're just not getting it are you?

I gave a situation that has occurred to me numerous times in my career so far. The "why are you arresting me I was only having a laugh guy" who when you go to put the cuffs on him, pulls back from you and starts to get aggressive. Gardai are not social workers, we are law enforcers and peace keepers, when a person gets aggressive the peace keeper role goes out the window and the law enforcer hat goes on. This is when the training kicks in and Gardai are trained that the safest and easiest way to arrest a person is when they are lying prone on the ground and the Garda is in a position of control.

This is why a person is put to the ground when not complying, and the member them places their knee on their shoulder/neck/back to control and subdue them. (exactly what the OP describes). Therefore I made a very well educated guess that the OP resisted and put that question to him.

This is the point that you butted in with you righteous damn the Gardai attitude that you seem intent on parading on this forum every time the opportunity arises.

MapForJ

source wrote: »

WOW you're just not getting it are you?

I gave a situation that has occurred to me numerous times in my career so far. The "why are you arresting me I was only having a laugh guy" who when you go to put the cuffs on him, pulls back from you and starts to get aggressive. Gardai are not social workers, we are law enforcers and peace keepers, when a person gets aggressive the peace keeper role goes out the window and the law enforcer hat goes on. This is when the training kicks in and Gardai are trained that the safest and easiest way to arrest a person is when they are lying prone on the ground and the Garda is in a position of control.

This is why a person is put to the ground when not complying, and the member them places their knee on their shoulder/neck/back to control and subdue them. (exactly what the OP describes). Therefore I made a very well educated guess that the OP resisted and put that question to him.

This is the point that you butted in with you righteous damn the Gardai attitude that you seem intent on parading on this forum every time the opportunity arises.

you are the one not getting it WOW too. we are not talking about your experiences but one you were not at and imo the force used was excessive. and you have a righteous excuse the garda attitude but i do not have to apologise to you for my opinions re gardai. And i do not intend to continue answering you. If you want my opinion read what I have written.

visual

Thumps up to the police for doing a good job !

I bet the tax payer is paying for his solicitor looking for loop holes to divert the course of Justice. The Garda should add resisting arrest to the charge.

source

MapForJ wrote: »

you are the one not getting it WOW too. we are not talking about your experiences but one you were not at and imo the force used was excessive. and you have a righteous excuse the garda attitude but i do not have to apologise to you for my opinions re gardai. And i do not intend to continue answering you. If you want my opinion read what I have written.

It's called anecdotal evidence, giving personal experiences of similar situations in an effort to explain the example given in the OP.

I don't want you to apologise for your opinions, Just admit that there's 2 sides to every story and that we may not be getting 100% of the truth off the OP and keeping that in mind that there is a possibility that the member was just acting within the framework of reasonable force.

Finnbar01

MapForJ wrote: »

you are the one not getting it WOW too. we are not talking about your experiences but one you were not at and imo the force used was excessive. and you have a righteous excuse the garda attitude but i do not have to apologise to you for my opinions re gardai. And i do not intend to continue answering you. If you want my opinion read what I have written.

How do you know the force used was excessive? Were you there?

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

so, you said people are morons.

Some people are morons. Very insulting to say all Gardaí are morons just because you don't like them. I mean, aside from the one who prosecuted you, how many have you actually met?

MapForJ wrote: »

you are the one not getting it WOW too. we are not talking about your experiences but one you were not at and imo the force used was excessive. and you have a righteous excuse the garda attitude but i do not have to apologise to you for my opinions re gardai. And i do not intend to continue answering you. If you want my opinion read what I have written.

You weren't there either yet some how your opinion is much more important than people with a wealth of experience in similar situations? Throwing your toys out of the pram just makes you look pathetic.

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Some people are morons. Very insulting to say all Gardaí are morons just because you don't like them. I mean, aside from the one who prosecuted you, how many have you actually met?



You weren't there either yet some how your opinion is much more important than people with a wealth of experience in similar situations? Throwing your toys out of the pram just makes you look pathetic.

how do you know i was prosecuted? in fact i was not so be careful what you say about people

MapForJ

Finnbar01 wrote: »

How do you know the force used was excessive? Were you there?

i said imo the force was excessive going by op description

FreudianSlippers

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I mean, aside from the one who prosecuted you, how many have you actually met?

I think you may be confusing MapForJ with the OP. IMO it's an honest mistake.

J K

There is a duty to seek out evidence having a bearing on guilt or innocence.
Obligation by the prosecution to disclose material not intended to be used at the trial
dpp -vs- braddish

J K

MapForJ wrote: »

i said imo the force was excessive going by op description

Oh your opinion should be highly valued.
The ops story is he made a light hearted reference to harry potter to a police man and was then unceremoniously beaten up by him. And you take that story at face value.

MapForJ

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think you may be confusing MapForJ with the OP. IMO it's an honest mistake.

i do not think it is a mistake, it is an insulting comment. i see cops are still allowed to abuse people here, had a look at some old threads where that came up

MapForJ

J K wrote: »

Oh your opinion should be highly valued.

i only said i had one and gave it

The ops story is he made a light hearted reference to harry potter to a police man and was then unceremoniously beaten up by him. And you take that story at face value.

i would consider it as true yes that the cop did not like the smart answer and abused his power. would not be the first time. not to me by the way.

FreudianSlippers

MapForJ wrote: »

i do not think it is a mistake, it is an insulting comment. i see cops are still allowed to abuse people here, had a look at some old threads where that came up

The people who post here are doing so in their own personal capacity unless expressly stated otherwise by boards (i.e. "official" accounts).

People are not posting as their profession. I suggest you take that on board to else get used to not posting here.


I will say it again because people seem to be a bit slow in understanding this:

People posting here are doing so in their personal capacity. What they do for a profession is not relevant to this forum - insinuating otherwise will result in an immediate ban.

MapForJ

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The people who post here are doing so in their own personal capacity unless expressly stated otherwise by boards (i.e. "official" accounts).

People are not posting as their profession. I suggest you take that on board to else get used to not posting here.


I will say it again because people seem to be a bit slow in understanding this:

People posting here are doing so in their personal capacity. What they do for a profession is not relevant to this forum - insinuating otherwise will result in an immediate ban.

go ahead and ban me then.

i will take the lead from another poster who said he would ask garda bosses why cops are allowed to abuse and insult and make false allegations about people here.

i was not prosecuted as was alleged

i will also forward this to a journalist i know

source

MapForJ Any member that has posted here has thought long and hard about what they have posted, and anything they have posted will be accurate. As Seanbeag said throwing your toys out of your pram when everybody doesn't bend to your outlook is pathetic.

Accept that people have a different view and opinion to you. Also I really don't think that the comments in this thread are in any way newsworthy. Do you really think that people saying there's 2 sides to a story and giving a differing opinion to yours will be on the front page of papers tomorrow?

Zambia

MapForj wrote:

go ahead and ban me then.

i will take the lead from another poster who said he would ask garda bosses why cops are allowed to abuse and insult and make false allegations about people here.

i was not prosecuted as was alleged

i will also forward this to a journalist i know
[/B]

Might want to clean it up a bit before you do.

MapForJ

source wrote: »

MapForJ Any member that has posted here has thought long and hard about what they have posted, and anything they have posted will be accurate. As Seanbeag said throwing your toys out of your pram when everybody doesn't bend to your outlook is pathetic.

Accept that people have a different view and opinion to you. Also I really don't think that the comments in this thread are in any way newsworthy. Do you really think that people saying there's 2 sides to a story and giving a differing opinion to yours will be on the front page of papers tomorrow?

it is not accurate to say i was prosecuted and toys pram is just nonsense . i never said my opinion was right only made it and said it was my opinionSeanbeagsaying i was prosecuted is just him being a liitle boy who has no other incorrect answer. i was not prosecuted. Can i say you drove drunk?.it is not the differing opinions that are of interest to my journalist friend but the way cops are allowed behave here. never said anything about front page news. grow up and realise not everyone is taken in by your BS. gon back to your ES forum where ye can pat each others backs lol

MapForJ

Zambia wrote: »

Might want to clean it up a bit before you do.

pathetic