Stay classy Gardai - Mod Note in OP

Seachmall

Senna wrote: »

If it takes that driver 9 seconds to put a car into gear and move off, he must spend the rest of his day stuck at red lights:rolleyes:

This isn't a normal situation, the driver has ulterior motive and was doing his very best to provoke a reaction. Any normal person can follow the directions of a guard, produce a license within seconds and be on their way.

I never said he wanted to pull in or he was happy about pulling in. There's no doubt it crossed his mind not to pull in.

However, the claim was made the he refused to pull the car over.

The fact is he did make an attempt to pull in, thus he did not refuse. That's irrefutable.

lastlaugh

Seachmall wrote: »

I never said he wanted to pull in or he was happy about pulling in. There's no doubt it crossed his mind not to pull in.

However, the claim was made the he refused to pull the car over.

The fact is he did make an attempt to pull in, thus he did not refuse. That's irrefutable.

Give it up Seachmall, if you call that an attempt to pull in, you are indeed deluded.

You are getting a bit pedantic now about the whole refusal thing.

The fact is he didn't pull when when he was asked, that's a refusal in my book.

I won't be posting in this thread again as I think I've made my position clear enough.

Savage93

hondasam wrote: »

Detectives are not in uniform, plain clothes. No hat.

If they had to wear hats in plain clothes they wouldn't really be in plain clothes and we'd notice them now , wouldn't we???:D

Seachmall

lastlaugh wrote: »

Give it up Seachmall, if you call that an attempt to pull in, you are indeed deluded.

You are getting a bit pedantic now about the whole refusal thing.

The fact is he didn't pull when when he was asked, that's a refusal in my book.

I won't be posting in this thread again as I think I've made my position clear enough.

The fact is he went to pull in when asked. This is an observable fact.

Attempting to pull in =/= refusing to pull in.

Gordon

davetherave wrote: »

Garda: Can you lower your window please?
Guy: No.

Garda: Can you open your window. *Something*. I want to see your driver's license.
Guy: I'm not opening it.


Garda: Open the window.
Guy: Look calm down, the window doesn't open.
Garda: Open the door.
Guy keeps ****ting on about the broken window motor.

Garda: I made a legal requirement of you to produce your driving license. You didn't give it to me.
Guy: I was going to, I couldn't even hear you. I told you the motor wasn't working.

What a liar!

Fart

Dump wrote: »

Why are people saying the window was smashed? No evidence of that happening on video.

Turn your sound on. :cool:

lastlaugh

Seachmall wrote: »

The fact is he went to pull in when asked. This is an observable fact.

Attempting to pull in =/= refusing to pull in.

Moving a few inches after ignoring verbal requests & Hand signals ≠ attempting to pull in 'when asked'

If there's one thing I hate, it's people who think they're above the cops. Had he just done what they asked, none of this would have happened. Lesson learned.

Seachmall

lastlaugh wrote: »

Moving a few inches after ignoring verbal requests & Hand signals ≠ attempting to pull in 'when asked'

When verbally asked the second Garda was standing on front of him, so he couldn't move the car.

When that Garda moved and he was motioned he moved in under 9 seconds.

He only moved a few inches because the third Garda crossed on front and approached his window.



Now, you can argue 9 seconds is an unreasonable amount of time. That's fine. But you cannot argue that he explicitly or implicitly refused to pull in when it is an observable fact that he attempted to pull in.

_feedback_

Seachmall wrote: »

When verbally asked the second Garda was standing on front of him, so he couldn't move the car.

The garda was indeed in front of the car.

But they were instructing him to move to the left. You could have got a bus through there.

If you were stopped for nine seconds at a traffic lights after they turn green, you would be lifted out of it with horns.

Seachmall

elviscostello wrote: »

The garda was indeed in front of the car.

But they were instructing him to move to the left. You could have got a bus through there.

I don't know how you can tell that from the video. Doesn't look like a big gap to me and you have to move forward to move left.

Tipp Man

Seachmall wrote: »

When verbally asked the second Garda was standing on front of him, so he couldn't move the car.

When that Garda moved and he was motioned he moved in under 9 seconds.

He only moved a few inches because the third Garda crossed on front and approached his window.



Now, you can argue 9 seconds is an unreasonable amount of time. That's fine. But you cannot argue that he explicitly or implicitly refused to pull in when it is an observable fact that he attempted to pull in.

at 48 seconds he clearly says no when asked to pull into the side

He was asked immediately again to pull into the side - he replied that he was going about his business and made no attempt to pull in

Subsequently he was signalled to pull into the side by both BanGarda and he did not. they were clearly not standing in his way or stopping him from pulling in. The couple of inches movement most certainly is NOT an attempt to pull it

He clearly had no intention of pulling over or doing anything to cooperate with the Gardai

Face the facts

Seachmall

Tipp Man wrote: »

at 48 seconds he clearly says no when asked to pull into the side

48 seconds he clearly says no. We can't hear what in response to.

Subsequently he was signalled to pull into the side by both BanGarda and he did not. they were clearly not standing in his way or stopping him from pulling in. The couple of inches movement most certainly is NOT an attempt to pull it

When motioned by the two Garda he began to move.

It took 9 seconds, yes. But he began to move. I'm not arguing whether or not 9 seconds is a reasonable time. I'm arguing that A) he moved when motioned and that is evidence he was not refusing.

He clearly had no intention of pulling over or doing anything to cooperate with the Gardai

You say he had no intention of pulling over yet the video explicitly shows he attempted to pull over.

Face the facts

The facts? Or your interpretation of the facts?

Stark

RATM wrote: »

The jurys out for me on this one, but I will say that there was absolutely no need to smash the drivers window in while he was in the drivers seat- they could have caused him serious damage had a shard of glass landed into his neck or head.

Nah, the glass in car windows is designed not to cause injury when it shatters.

Gardaí should have given the hippie a bath while they were at it. That would have sorted him out.

_feedback_

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't know how you can tell that from the video. Doesn't look like a big gap to me and you have to move forward to move left.

I am taking the reasonable assumption that the gap to the left of the car is the same as what is visible to the front left.

I am also basing it on the fact that two Gardai were instructing him to go there. I can't see why they would signal to move if it was not possible.

He barely moved in the finish up. He refused initially and then made the slightest of movements.

If he had been going fúcking crazy and resisting arrest, and then after a while said "sure fair enough". It still would have been noted that he resisted arrest in the first place.

Tipp Man

Seachmall wrote: »

48 seconds he clearly says no. We can't hear what in response to.


When motioned by the two Garda he began to move.

It took 9 seconds, yes. But he began to move. I'm not arguing whether or not 9 seconds is a reasonable time. I'm arguing that A) he moved when motioned and that is evidence he was not refusing.

You say he had no intention of pulling over yet the video explicitly shows he attempted to pull over.

The facts? Or your interpretation of the facts?

Under no circumstances can you say that he made an attempt to pull into the side of the road, the car moved a couple of inches but there is absolutely no indication that it was to move into the left - it could have been to drive straight through the checkpoint for all you know

In fact that couple of inches movement - and that is all it is at best - could be a result of taking his foot off the brake and the car rolling a bit

Seachmall

elviscostello wrote: »

I am also basing it on the fact that two Gardai were instructing him to go there. I can't see why they would signal to move if it was not possible.

The point you're responding to was in relation to when the Garda was standing with her back to the car, not when they were signalling him to move.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Under no circumstances can you say that he made an attempt to pull into the side of the road, the car moved a couple of inches but there is absolutely no indication that it was to move into the left - it could have been to drive straight through the checkpoint for all you know

In fact that couple of inches movement - and that is all it is at best - could be a result of taking his foot off the brake and the car rolling a bit

Oh please.

monkeybutter

aaah, the irony of calling this guy a hippy and a hairy hole, or claiming he is on the dole.

Are all of you fascists on the dole? Or are you on a day off or something, cause you'd be positing during work if not. Or are you all wasters?

The reality is if this happened to them, they'd be up in arms about it, simple as that.

tiny_penguin

monkeybutter wrote: »

aaah, the irony of calling this guy a hippy and a hairy hole, or claiming he is on the dole.

Are all of you fascists on the dole? Or are you on a day off or something, cause you'd be positing during work if not. Or are you all wasters?

The reality is if this happened to them, they'd be up in arms about it, simple as that.

The reality is that people would have pulled in and opened their car door (if window was broken) as soon as they came accross a garda checkpoint

Tipp Man

Seachmall wrote: »

Oh please.

so you agree that we can in no way say that the movement of the car was to pull into the left hand side of the road as instructed?

Seachmall

Tipp Man wrote: »

so you agree that we can in no way say that the movement of the car was to pull into the left hand side of the road as instructed?

I say that we can reasonably conclude there is no evidence that he refused to pull in.

italodisco

Lol... I've been stopped every weekend on the way to work at 5am and breathalized, its happened for the last few months now. Yes it gets on my rag but its not harassment, its the gardai doing their job! Idont need a camera on my dash to catch them lol

And I shouldn't have said you are all fools as you are not, plenty of decent smart people on Here so apologies are due.

But being realistic, if my window ain't working and the garda. Stop me I will just open the door, ITS THAT SIMPLE. That lad in the video got off lightly.

The gardai are not always right but I don't think the garda. In the video signed up for the job in the hope of harassing mayo residents for the crack.

Thank god you don't live in a country were the cops really do enforce the law lol

_feedback_

Seachmall wrote: »

The point you're responding to was in relation to when the Garda was standing with her back to the car, not when they were signalling him to move.

I don't think I follow you...

Why would he be moving when the Garda is standing with her back to the car? Of course he wouldn't. I'm talking about him making no attempt when he is signalled.

Tipp Man

Seachmall wrote: »

I say that we can reasonably conclude there is no evidence that he refused to pull in.

Clearly there is evidence - the video clearly shows that the car has not pulled into the side of the road as instructed

We hear several requests for him to pull in

We clearly see 2 BanGarda motioning him into the side of the road

He failed to comply with both types of request

Ergo he refused to pull in

It all there in the video if you actually opened your eyes to see what it actually shows

Seachmall

elviscostello wrote: »

I don't think I follow you...

Why would he be moving when the Garda is standing with her back to the car? Of course he wouldn't. I'm talking about him making no attempt when he is signalled.

The point you responded to was,

Seachmall wrote: »

When verbally asked [by the first Garda] the second Garda was standing on front of him, so he couldn't move the car.

Nothing to do with anyone signaling.

_feedback_

Seachmall wrote: »

The point you responded to was,



Nothing to do with anyone signaling.

Good golly.. You really are clutching at straws.

It is blindingly obvious without listening to a word that anyone says, that he has no intention of moving when he has a clear path to do so.

lastlaugh

People seem to be forgetting that this guy could have been some kind of retard so he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Seachmall

elviscostello wrote: »

Good golly.. You really are clutching at straws.

It is blindingly obvious without listening to a word that anyone says, that he has no intention of moving when he has a clear path to do so.

"Clutching at straws"?

You quoted my post, responded in a way that didn't address the quoted post and I pointed this out.

I wasn't even addressing the issue, just correcting you.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Clearly there is evidence - the video clearly shows that the car has not pulled into the side of the road as instructed

We hear several requests for him to pull in

We clearly see 2 BanGarda motioning him into the side of the road

He failed to comply with both types of request

Ergo he refused to pull in

It all there in the video if you actually opened your eyes to see what it actually shows

Oh for God's sake.

Here are the facts.

At 0:49 the Garda verbally asks him to pull in.
At 0:59 the second Garda moves out of the way to allow him to pull in. Both Gardai signal for him to move.
At 1:08 the car begins to move.
At 1:09 the third Garda crosses on front of the car preventing him from moving any further and approaches his window.

Now, the only issue is between 0:59 and 1:08. Before that time he hadn't been requested to pull in as far as we can hear and after that time he could not pull in.

That's 9 seconds of the car being stationary. Now, you might interpret that 9 seconds as a refusal to comply. I might interpret those 9 seconds as 4 seconds of him thinking about his next move and 5 seconds of putting the car into gear (I explained why in an earlier post) [I don't, by the way].


However, those are just interpretations of the facts. Not the facts. There is no factual evidence in the video that proves he refused to comply with pulling in.

Tipp Man

Seachmall wrote: »

"Clutching at straws"?

You quoted my post, responded in a way that didn't address the quoted post and I pointed this out.

I wasn't even addressing the issue, just correcting you.



Oh for God's sake.

Here are the facts.

At 0:49 the Garda verbally asks him to pull in.
At 0:59 the second Garda moves out of the way to allow him to pull in. Both Gardai signal for him to move.
At 1:08 the car begins to move.
At 1:09 the third Garda crosses on front of the car preventing him from moving any further and approaches his window.

Now, the only issue is between 0:59 and 1:08. Before that time he hadn't been requested to pull in as far as we can hear and after that time he could not pull in.

That's 9 seconds of the car being stationary. Now, you might interpret that 9 seconds as a refusal to comply. I might interpret those 9 seconds and 4 seconds of him thinking about his next move and 5 seconds of putting the car into gear (I explained why in an earlier post).


HOWEVER, those are just interpretations of the facts. Not the facts. There is no factual evidence in the video that proves he refused to comply with pulling in.

Really you are showing yourself up here now

For your own sake might be best if you gave it up on this occassion

_feedback_

Seachmall wrote: »

"Clutching at straws"?

You quoted my post, responded in a way that didn't address the quoted post and I pointed this out.

I wasn't even addressing the issue, just correcting you.

I may not have addressed it as you had put it accross, as I am looking at it as if I was in the driver seat. I cannot defend it in any way. He had loads of time and acres of space.

lastlaugh wrote: »

People seem to be forgetting that this guy could have been some kind of retard so he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

He is known to the Gardai. He has been involved in the STS movement for years. I actually think the fact they knew him (and knew he was harmless) is the main reason that they shouldn't have smashed the window. I didn't know that when I agreed with them (thought it was maybe a bit harsh) initially.