Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stay classy Gardai - Mod Note in OP

Options
1…1213141618

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Really you are showing yourself up here now

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

    I think you'll find nothing I have said is incorrect.

    You claim he refused to pull in. It is up to you to prove that claim.


  • Options
    #453
    italodisco
    Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭italodisco


    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.
    Best assumption ever lol seen as though this happened. In mayo lol


  • Options
    #454
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,894 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Seachmall wrote: »
    It is up to you to prove that claim.

    Lol.


  • Options
    #455
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Seachmall wrote: »
    I think you'll find nothing I have said is incorrect.

    You claim he refused to pull in. It is up to you to prove that claim.

    2 BanGarda motioned him several times to pull into the left hand side of the road, having previously verbally asked him to pull in. These BanGarda clearly move out of the way to allow him to pull in

    He did not pull in

    Now cop onto yourself will ya


  • Options
    #456
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    elviscostello wrote: »
    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.

    If you're referring to when the two Gardai were signaling him to pull in you quoted the wrong part of the post, hence the confusion, and I've addressed that point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    membersonly
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭membersonly


    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 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.

    You seem to be editing the video in your head. You're deluded. He verbally refuses to pull in twice.

    When asked to pull in he says "no". That's a refusal.

    He's asked to pull in again, he says "I'm going about my business".

    You talk alot about interpretation there, I personally interpret the word "NO" as a refusal. That's just me though.


  • Options
    #458
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    2 BanGarda motioned him several times to pull into the left hand side of the road, having previously verbally asked him to pull in. These BanGarda clearly move out of the way to allow him to pull in

    He did not pull in

    Now cop onto yourself will ya

    He did move the car in less than 9 seconds.


    Anything you derive from that is your interpretation and subject to bias.

    Your interpretation is that he was not going to pull in and the car moved by accident (or some other reason that was not him pulling in).

    My interpretation is that he did not want to pull in but conceded that he must and began to pull in.


    But, wait for it, they're both still just interpretations. And to claim either is true, as is being done, can only be as a result of bias as neither are demonstrated in the video.
    membersonly wrote:
    I personally interpret the word "NO" as a refusal. That's just me though.
    Watch the video again. When he says "No", what had the Garda asked him?


  • Options
    #459
    italodisco
    Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭italodisco


    Some of u are getting so upset over this lol..... You must have empty lives!! I bet you also go out checking tax discs on your street and like to Noam about people parking outside your houses lol! !

    Really lads, is it such an important serious terrible. Thing you are all crying over?

    NO ITS NOT LOL


  • Options
    #460
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Seachmall wrote: »
    He did move the care in less than 9 seconds.


    Anything you derive from that is your interpretation and subject to bias.

    My interpretation is that he did not want to pull in but conceded that he must.


    But, wait for it, they're both still just interpretations. And to claim either is true, as is being done, can only be as a result of bias as neither are demonstrated in the video.

    Watch the video again. When he says "No", what had the Garda asked him?

    Well 1 thing is absolute fact

    He was asked and motioned several times to pull into the left hand side of the road

    At the end of their interaction the car is NOT in the left hand side of the road

    So he has not complied with the Garda request (several of them)

    That is a fact


  • Options
    #461
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Well 1 thing is absolute fact

    He was asked and motioned several times to pull into the left hand side of the road

    At the end of their interaction the car is NOT in the left hand side of the road

    That is a fact

    That is a fact.


    But, if my interpretation is correct the reason why he has not pulled in is justifiable (Garda crossed over, went to his window).


    Thus it's not conclusive that the fact that he didn't pull in was as a result of his refusal to pull in.


    That is my point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Seachmall wrote: »
    That is a fact.


    But, if my interpretation is correct why he has not pulled in is justifiable (Garda crossed over, went to his window).


    Thus it's not conclusive that the fact that he didn't pull in was as a result of his refusal to pull in.


    That is my point.

    When both BanGarda were stood to the front and to the side motioning him to pull in he had no reason not to pull in


  • Options
    #463
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    When both BanGarda were stood to the front and to the side motioning him to pull in he had no reason not to pull in

    He had 9 seconds to pull in. Here's one possibility as to why he sat there for 9 seconds.
    Seachmall wrote:
    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, releasing handbreak, checking mirrors, etc. (I explained why in an earlier post).


    Note: Still just interpretations.


  • Options
    #464
    _feedback_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭_feedback_


    Seachmall wrote: »
    That is a fact.


    But, if my interpretation is correct the reason why he has not pulled in is justifiable (Garda crossed over, went to his window).


    Thus it's not conclusive that the fact that he didn't pull in was as a result of his refusal to pull in.


    That is my point.

    But sure it's not!

    He made no attempt to move when he was told to move. That guard you mention was coming over for that very reason. Because he refused to move! :D


  • Options
    #465
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Seachmall wrote: »
    He had 9 seconds to pull in. Here's one possibility as to why he sat there for 9 seconds.




    Note: Still just interpretations.

    If you were going to comply with the request to pull in you would not need 4 seconds to think about your next move and 5 seconds to put the car in gear as you would simply put the car in gear and pull over (takes a second at most)

    So if you think that he spent 4 seconds thinking about his next move then you think that he was contemplating not complying with the Garda request, which as it turns out is exactly what he did, he failed to comply with their (several) requests

    Face it, there is absolutely no justification for his actions, or lack there of, apart from him being an idiot and deliberatly trying to instigate an "incident"


  • Options
    #466
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    elviscostello wrote: »
    But sure it's not!

    He made no attempt to move when he was told to move.
    The car moved 9 seconds after they began signaling.

    You might say the car moved by accident and did not reflect his intention to pull in.
    I might say the 9 seconds comprised of 4 seconds of him deciding if he should pull in and 5 seconds of getting in gear/checking mirrors/etc. to move in.

    So why the car remained stationary for 9 seconds can not be known, at least not by the video. Any suggestion that either interpretation is correct is only bias as it's not supported by what we see.
    That guard you mention was coming over for that very reason. Because he refused to move! :D
    Once again; interpretation.

    We don't know why he came over. Maybe he came over because the guy regularly caused hassle and that Garda was having a bad day. Or maybe he was watching from a window and figured the guy was refusing to move in.

    Tipp Man wrote: »
    If you were going to comply with the request to pull in you would not need 4 seconds to think about your next move and 5 seconds to put the car in gear as you would simply put the car in gear and pull over (takes a second at most)
    Well, you'd want to check your mirrors first. You might be extra cautious because it's a checkpoint. You might have one of those arseholes of handbreaks that are stiff as ****. Etc.

    Many possibilites, none of which are proven or disproved by the video.
    So if you think that he spent 4 seconds thinking about his next move then you think that he was contemplating not complying with the Garda request, which as it turns out is exactly what he did, he failed to comply with their (several) requests

    Face it, there is absolutely no justification for his actions, or lack there of, apart from him being an idiot and deliberatly trying to instigate an "incident"
    I never said there was.

    I'm saying there is absolutely no evidence, thus no justification, for concluding that he had absolutely no intent of complying with the Garda's demands.


    Can you prove otherwise? Not interpretations but evidence demonstrated in the video.


  • Options
    #467
    giles lynchwood
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭giles lynchwood


    This was excessive force by a bully in a uniform probably trying to impress the two women in the hope of a ride,he sounded like a very frustrated fascist.


  • Options
    #468
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Seachmall wrote: »
    The car moved 9 seconds after they began signaling.

    You might say the car moved by accident and did not reflect his intention to pull in.
    I might say the 9 seconds comprised of 4 seconds of him deciding if he should pull in and 5 seconds of getting in gear/checking mirrors/etc. to move in.

    So why the car remained stationary for 9 seconds can not be known, at least not by the video. Any suggestion that either interpretation is correct is only bias as it's not supported by what we see.

    Once again; interpretation.

    We don't know why he came over. Maybe he came over because the guy regularly caused hassle and that Garda was having a bad day. Or maybe he was watching from a window and figured the guy was refusing to move in.


    Well, you'd want to check your mirrors first. You might be extra cautious because it's a checkpoint. You might have one of those arseholes of handbreaks that are stiff as ****. Etc.

    Many possibilites, none of which are proven or disproved by the video.

    I never said there was.

    I'm saying there is absolutely no evidence, thus no justification, for concluding that he had absolutely no intent of complying with the Garda's demands.


    Can you prove otherwise? Not interpretations but evidence demonstrated in the video.

    The car rolled forward a few inches in a straight line. He clearly wasn't pulling in. He refused to obey the directions of the Gardaí or open the door or produce his licence.They smashed the window and opened the door but he refused to get out until he was threatened with pepper spray. The video is clear on all this and you seem to be looking at it through some oddly tinted glasses.


  • Options
    #469
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    MagicSean wrote: »
    The car rolled forward a few inches in a straight line. He clearly wasn't pulling in. He refused to obey the directions of the Gardaí or open the door or produce his licence.They smashed the window and opened the door but he refused to get out until he was threatened with pepper spray. The video is clear on all this and you seem to be looking at it through some oddly tinted glasses.

    I hope I'm quick enough pulling in for the Gardai at the next check point,don't want my car smashed up


  • Options
    #470
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    MagicSean wrote: »
    The car rolled forward a few inches in a straight line. He clearly wasn't pulling in. [...] The video is clear on all this and you seem to be looking at it through some oddly tinted glasses.

    It's not clear on that at all.

    His car moved forward after he was prompted to move it forward, I don't think it's obscene to suggest he may have move it forward.

    And "few inches in a straight line"? Pop in your car, turn the steering wheel, drive forward a couple of inches, and record it on a SD camera. 10 euro says it's impossible to tell what angle you were taking.

    Now I'm not saying he definitely intended to comply but if you dismiss it even as a possibility I think it's clear who's wearing the tinted glasses.


  • Options
    #471
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    micropig wrote: »
    I hope I'm quick enough pulling in for the Gardai at the next check point,don't want my car smashed up

    You'll be grand, when they ask you to pull in just tell them you're goin about you business and then ask them what's going on here?
    By rights, they should consider you retarded.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    You'll be grand, when they ask you to pull in just tell them you're goin about you business and then ask them what's going on here?
    By rights, they should consider you retarded.


    Able to make medical diagnosis now as well are they:p

    Just wondering what is the correct angle to pull in at 45, 65, 75 degrees?


  • Options
    #473
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,894 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    micropig wrote: »
    Able to make medical diagnosis now as well are they:p

    Just wondering what is the correct angle to pull in at 45, 65, 75 degrees?

    If you're asking how not to be a dick, maybe your parents should have taught you that.


  • Options
    #474
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    Stark wrote: »
    If you're asking how not to be a dick, maybe your parents should have taught you that.

    No the question I asked was what angle should I pull in at?


  • Options
    #475
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    micropig wrote: »
    No the question I asked was what angle should I pull in at?

    Not sure, but you should always pull out at speed.


  • Options
    #476
    WallysWorld
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭WallysWorld


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    WallysWorld wrote: »
    It doesn't matter that the guy was looking to provoke a reaction, going on the video evidence alone even if he was he didn't do a whole lot of provoking.
    If the guards are getting involved, a hiding isn't far off, that's just the nature of the business. They are authorised by the state to use force, so they do. Maybe there's a better way to run it, but then again I don't deal with scumbags, wife beaters, drug dealers, thieves, rapists and murderers on a daily basis.

    That should never be the nature of the business, and your attitude to it is crap. Guards have no right to dish out hidings just because they are guards.

    There is of course better ways to deal with it, yeah guards are perfectly allowed to use force but just because they are allowed to does not mean they should always use that option.

    It all depends on context, if I threaten or raise a hand to a guard or the public and it takes a pasting to put me down then so be it, but having said that they should always always use the minimum required and I don't think there's any way you can see that the guard in that video had ran out of options to get the driver to comply.

    The baton should have been the last resort, instead it was the first option taken.

    Edit: having read through the thread completely now I want to say that the real issue here isn't whether he complied with the guards orders its whether the guards response was appropriate.

    The driver may have been looking for a reaction he might have even technically broke the law, but it's the guards job not to react to him, he should have been concerned with calming the whole thing instead he chose to escalate. He was the professional in the situation and he overreacted.


  • Options
    #477
    milehip1
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭milehip1


    italodisco wrote: »
    Best assumption ever lol seen as though this happened. In mayo lol



    Idiots can come from anywhere,
    you're living proof.Lol yuk yuk:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #478
    Groinshot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭Groinshot


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Yes illegal arrest if theres no hat on.

    Legally if you knock a gardas hat off whilst he's arresting you then the arrest is cancelled. If the garda attempts to continue with the arrest then you can actually make a citizens arrest on him for impersonating a garda. Fact.

    That's a pile of ****e. Surely if you knock his hat off, he can smack you with a baton, and make a citizens arrest on you for assaulting a garda, then put his hat back on and finish the job?


  • Options
    #479
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    Haven't really been following this thread.

    Anyway. Watched video.

    Yer man might've had a broken window motor, but what stopped him from opening the door and telling the Gard's that?

    I'm not exactly pro-establishment, but looks to me like he went picking a fight with police, then throws his toys out of the pram when it happens.


    Edit, watched it second time. I stand by what I wrote above.

    Idiot tbh.


  • Options
    #480
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Ghandee wrote: »

    Yer man might've had a broken window motor, but what stopped him from opening the door and telling the Gard's that?



    One theory.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    mikom wrote: »
    One theory.

    Lol!


Advertisement