Gardai want ban on people photographing and recording them on duty

Reati

Donal55 wrote: »

And isn't that the way it should be?

Yes, they should be brought in but not sure why people keep referencing them though. Has little to do with the purposed motion and the ever changing reasons the Gaurds say they want it.

Body cameras or not, there should be no reason we can't film them in public.

tayto lover

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Few bad eggs in any profession??? Have you lost your mind!!
Most professions do not have the power to detain you, most professions do not have the power to apprehend you by force if needs be!
Incarcerate and hold you if they deem it worthy. And in most professions you assault someone you are probably going to end up in court without any real prejudice or bias... Good luck trying to prove a Garda assaulted you if there is no video evidence!

The Garda should be held to a higher standard by virtue of their status within society and the power they hold!

As for your statement above and assumptions, I do not think the Garda for the most part are "incompetent violent thugs". But I do think there is a lot of corruption up and down in this country and within An Garda Siochana.
I do not think this law protects anyone, including the Garda.

As for myself, seeing you are now on a roll... Never had a run in with a Garda, I know most of them by name in my local town, one actually called to the house for tea after a car accident just to see how I was doing a number of years ago, so a nice guy could not say a bad word about him.

the "good eggs" would not need to worry about someone recording them![/QUOTE]

They would if their picture appeared on Social media with their names and addresses because they were filmed arresting a well known criminal.

Reati

tayto lover wrote: »

They would if their picture appeared on Social media with their names and addresses because they were filmed arresting a well known criminal.

This is strawman argument. A drug dealer will know or will find out who the arresting gardai is filmed or not filmed if they want too. It's naive to think otherwise.

The motion needs to be worded correctly to deal with that, not to ban filming outright.

Little CuChulainn

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Bit like someone who is trying to score points due to semantics but really adds nothing to the debate.

"AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to photograph or video a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent..."

Is that better? You happy now?

Did you know it's illegal in this country to drive? It's in the law, I just left out the part about having alcohol in your system. Did you know it's illegal for a man to have sex with a woman? It's in the law, I just left out the bit about consent. That's how most people, including journalists, have chosen to interpret the motion from AGSI.

Most people are also ignoring the fact that the same organisation called for body cams to be provided to Gardaí last year.

tayto lover

Reati wrote: »

This is strawman argument. A drug dealer will know or will find out who the arresting gardai is filmed or not filmed if they want too. It's naive to think otherwise.

The motion needs to be worded correctly to deal with that, not to ban filming outright.

So someone making it easy for him and identifying where the garda lives and who the members of his family are is ok with you?
I certainly see something wrong with it.

seamus

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Tell you what open a thread on how the media falsely tell the New's my quote came from the independent.

So instead of actually verifying what a journalist has said is correct, you're going to discuss something that doesn't exist and has never been proposed?

That's a good use of your time.

But again not we are getting off topic, this is to do with water protesters and confrontation with the Garda trying to obfuscate does not change we all know what this is in relation too.

That's on-topic? Never mind the media, do you even hear yourself properly?

ShowMeTheCash

TheDoc wrote: »

As discussed at the time, was that not a Ministerial vehicle leaving?

Looks heavy handed, but that is what happens when you try jump the hood of a states representatives vehicle. Sorry but if you think you have a "right" to jump on an elected member of states vehicle, and being treated softly, you need to wake up.

And if that happened to be someone cracked in the head with an explosive vest? That is the sort of world we live in, and that is the training that is received and provided in security details and VIP scenarios.

I think it's laughable and sad that any grown adult would actually take any issues with the Guardaí in that scenario. Very unfortunate a bollard was there that probably wrecked that woman, but a) Appreciate the Guards don't have time in their reaction to lay out a matress or look for a soft spot to fling the nutter and b)The individual should appreciate if they weren't prosecuted

Here we go again, explosive vest? It is laughable that a grown adult needs to try and jump to such extremes to justify the actions of the Garda??

If you watch the video, the middle Garda looked to have this under control, if it was not for the officer in the yellow jacked who impedes the vehicle by running in front of it but then to launch the woman into the pavement in such a manner he ends up on the pavement himself....
Yeah his training looked to be top notch, but you are also side stepping the idea that the public are not allowed to show their discontent, maybe we should ban protesting while we are at it?

ShowMeTheCash

seamus wrote: »

So instead of actually verifying what a journalist has said is correct, you're going to discuss something that doesn't exist and has never been proposed?

That's a good use of your time.

That's on-topic? Never mind the media, do you even hear yourself properly?

So let me get this straight you are arguing over:

AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to publish any photograph or video of a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent

opposed to

AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to photograph or video a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent..

How exactly do you think this would or could be enforced?

ShowMeTheCash

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Did you know it's illegal in this country to drive? It's in the law, I just left out the part about having alcohol in your system. Did you know it's illegal for a man to have sex with a woman? It's in the law, I just left out the bit about consent. That's how most people, including journalists, have chosen to interpret the motion from AGSI.

Most people are also ignoring the fact that the same organisation called for body cams to be provided to Gardaí last year.

What is your interpretation?

ShowMeTheCash

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Here we go again, explosive vest? It is laughable that a grown adult needs to try and jump to such extremes to justify the actions of the Garda??

If you watch the video, the middle Garda looked to have this under control, if it was not for the officer in the yellow jacked who impedes the vehicle by running in front of it but then to launch the woman into the pavement in such a manner he ends up on the pavement himself....
Yeah his training looked to be top notch, but you are also side stepping the idea that the public are not allowed to show their discontent, maybe we should ban protesting while we are at it?

Ok, so let's change the scenario, just a little bit.
This happened in London, on the prime ministers car, or the USA on the president's car. What do you think would happen?
Everyone wants a professional police force, but when gardai act appropriately, then perhaps people want a softly softly holdy hands policeman.

Trial by social media is not acceptable, in any circumstances. If there are videos or photos of criminal actions, then they should be used accordingly, and legally. That goes for everyone in society, including gardai.

skywalker

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Body cameras will show the entire incident not just the police brutality bit that the 'outraged citizen' wants you to see.

Awesome. Im all for it.

Little CuChulainn

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What is your interpretation?

It's in the wording.

"photographing or otherwise capturing an image, moving or otherwise, of a member of An Garda Síochána in the exercise of their duty without the member’s consent and to publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member."

The proposal as per that wording is that you would have to do all of the following

• Take a photo without consent
• Publish the photo
• Intend to identify the member

Most people are just taking the first or second one in isolation. Most, if not all, of the examples given here wouldn't be caught at all by the law because they are missing the third ingredient.

Widdershins

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes I do, it's was a private joke among st colleagues stemming from silly comments made by the woman in question.

Just reading the transcripts isn't enough....you need to view the footage which incidentally has since been shown to have been tampered with.

Again this is a prime example of why this motion really needs to be carried.

The tampering isn't incidental, it's important, but I haven't been able to find out who did it and what may have been removed or added or changed about the recording. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that they did not say what they said, and one of them, afaik, apologised for it.
No matter what the protestors said to cause them to make those jokes, gardai shouldn't be saying those things. At least not on duty and in uniform. In their own homes or between friends, given the context, I would understand them joking about it.

TheDoc

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Here we go again, explosive vest? It is laughable that a grown adult needs to try and jump to such extremes to justify the actions of the Garda??

If you watch the video, the middle Garda looked to have this under control, if it was not for the officer in the yellow jacked who impedes the vehicle by running in front of it but then to launch the woman into the pavement in such a manner he ends up on the pavement himself....
Yeah his training looked to be top notch, but you are also side stepping the idea that the public are not allowed to show their discontent, maybe we should ban protesting while we are at it?

Look it's roundabout conversations with people who have never done, experienced or any clue about the training involved there.

There is simply no time in scenarios like that, to factor every part of the equation. There are key points,priorities and objectives for a number of scenarios. While in a passive state there is hopefully skillsets for monitoring and threat identification etc., but these people are human, when **** hits the fan, training and instincts (the training is to make these decisions and actions instinctive) kick in.

It's not jumping to extremes. The training, the briefing that morning, the entire process, doesn't differentiate between a protester looking to be championed at the local water protest meetup or a threat packing explosives. They are identified as threats, simply put. There are of course scenarios and caveats, a child passes in front of the vehicle collecting a ball they dropped. But an adult female jumping the hood of the car, is being classified as a threat, and being dealt with as such.

This topic was covered exhaustively and many publications and radio stations an TV stations looked to numerous security experts and consultants who all unanimously agreed it was an appropriate course of action. So to be honest whether joe soap thought it heavy handed or not, it was the correct course of action resulting in no incident other then the assailant ending up n their arse.

Protesting and the likes is all fine. But lets not pretend there is just two extremes of the spectrum. There is the murky middle ground. Was present at many protests that occured in my vacinity (coming home from work through them or trying to get my parking spot) and there was clear instances of peaceful protest, but clear instances of provocation happening from either those assosiated in the protest, or just knackers from the area looking to kick up a fuss.

So protests are all fine and dandy, but there should be the realisation that when the police force are clearly overwhelmed numerically, that if things start to go sideways, they have an entitlement in their judgement calls to get involved, heavy handed or not. There is the general public safety to be considered along with the instructure of the city or area. Every shagging protest that goes on in town grinds the city to a halt

ShowMeTheCash

bubblypop wrote: »

Ok, so let's change the scenario, just a little bit.
This happened in London, on the prime ministers car, or the USA on the president's car. What do you think would happen?
Everyone wants a professional police force, but when gardai act appropriately, then perhaps people want a softly softly holdy hands policeman.

Trial by social media is not acceptable, in any circumstances. If there are videos or photos of criminal actions, then they should be used accordingly, and legally. That goes for everyone in society, including gardai.

And who decides what is criminal?

I do agree there is an element of trail by social media but this is the same for anyone why should the garda be exempted from this?

You want to justify the actions of the Garda by making up a scenario as if this was London or the USA and using words like "softly softly holdy hands policeman", But here is a scenario which is not made up and it happened in London, guy from Brazil decided to take the tube.... Ends up getting shot in the head by the MET..... An overreaction can be spectacularly worse than an under reaction!

Little CuChulainn

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

An overreaction can be spectacularly worse than an under reaction!

Says the man who is completely misrepresenting the position of AGSI for maximum outrage.

ShowMeTheCash

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And who decides what is criminal?

I do agree there is an element of trail by social media but this is the same for anyone why should the garda be exempted from this?

You want to justify the actions of the Garda by making up a scenario as if this was London or the USA and using words like "softly softly holdy hands policeman", But here is a scenario which is not made up and it happened in London, guy from Brazil decided to take the tube.... Ends up getting shot in the head by the MET..... An overreaction can be spectacularly worse than an under reaction!

The DPP decides if something is a criminal offence, the courts then deal with it.
On social media, i clearly stated that trial by social media is NOT acceptable, for anyone.
As about the 3rd point, I'm not sure what point you are making?

Edit, oh right, you are saying it was an overreaction in London. It was actually mistaken identity. Not that killing an innocent person is justified, but that's what happened, not just over reaction

ShowMeTheCash

TheDoc wrote: »

Look it's roundabout conversations with people who have never done, experienced or any clue about the training involved there.

There is simply no time in scenarios like that, to factor every part of the equation. There are key points,priorities and objectives for a number of scenarios. While in a passive state there is hopefully skillsets for monitoring and threat identification etc., but these people are human, when **** hits the fan, training and instincts (the training is to make these decisions and actions instinctive) kick in.

It's not jumping to extremes. The training, the briefing that morning, the entire process, doesn't differentiate between a protester looking to be championed at the local water protest meetup or a threat packing explosives. They are identified as threats, simply put. There are of course scenarios and caveats, a child passes in front of the vehicle collecting a ball they dropped. But an adult female jumping the hood of the car, is being classified as a threat, and being dealt with as such.

This topic was covered exhaustively and many publications and radio stations an TV stations looked to numerous security experts and consultants who all unanimously agreed it was an appropriate course of action. So to be honest whether joe soap thought it heavy handed or not, it was the correct course of action resulting in no incident other then the assailant ending up n their arse.

Protesting and the likes is all fine. But lets not pretend there is just two extremes of the spectrum. There is the murky middle ground. Was present at many protests that occured in my vacinity (coming home from work through them or trying to get my parking spot) and there was clear instances of peaceful protest, but clear instances of provocation happening from either those assosiated in the protest, or just knackers from the area looking to kick up a fuss.

So protests are all fine and dandy, but there should be the realisation that when the police force are clearly overwhelmed numerically, that if things start to go sideways, they have an entitlement in their judgement calls to get involved, heavy handed or not. There is the general public safety to be considered along with the instructure of the city or area. Every shagging protest that goes on in town grinds the city to a halt

And I can agree with most of what you said here but I am not the one using extreme "explosive vest" scenarios to justify the video, yes there is a gray but the Garda also have a duty of care which I feel lacking in the video.

ShowMeTheCash

bubblypop wrote: »

The DPP decides if something is a criminal offence, the courts then deal with it.
On social media, i clearly stated that trial by social media is NOT acceptable, for anyone.
As about the 3rd point, I'm not sure what point you are making?

Edit, oh right, you are saying it was an overreaction in London. It was actually mistaken identity. Not that killing an innocent person is justified, but that's what happened, not just over reaction

Ah so the DPP should decide..... So what about the news if there is a riot on the street filmed by dozens involving the Garda, this footage should not make the news?
It should be given to the DPP and they will deal with it?

I honestly do not think you have thought this through very well!

Oh so mistaken identity.... So executing a guilty suspect is perfectly fine! Gotcha!

ShowMeTheCash

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Says the man who is completely misrepresenting the position of AGSI for maximum outrage.

I did? Show me where I completely misrepresent the position of the AGSI?
I quote the independent which is not a complete misrepresentation, the area you refer to is the is the section "with intent to identify this member" it could be argued that posting a video or photograph in itself is showing intent to identify the member.

You are trying to obfuscate...

Reati

tayto lover wrote: »

Reati wrote: »

This is strawman argument. A drug dealer will know or will find out who the arresting gardai is filmed or not filmed if they want too. It's naive to think otherwise.

The motion needs to be worded correctly to deal with that, not to ban filming outright.

So someone making it easy for him and identifying where the garda lives and who the members of his family are is ok with you?
I certainly see something wrong with it.

Your ignoring the point and continuing with your strawman. You can't find one post from me that says that but says a lot about you how you try to twist the point.

ShowMeTheCash

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Ah so the DPP should decide..... So what about the news if there is a riot on the street filmed by dozens involving the Garda, this footage should not make the news?
It should be given to the DPP and they will deal with it?

I honestly do not think you have thought this through very well!

Oh so mistaken identity.... So executing a guilty suspect is perfectly fine! Gotcha!

Who said anything about the news? And , if criminality is shown on video then that footage is used as evidence. Probably GSOC would investigate, the DPP decides if someone is charged. I'm not sure why you are trying to make some big conspiracy about it!
There's nothing stopping anyone with footage of what they believe to be criminality, with bringing that footage to GSOC & making a complaint. Not trial by social media.

And maybe you need to read the post again, where i said killing an innocent person is not justified but you claimed an overreaction by police, I'm merely setting you straight that it was mistaken identity. All circumstances are different and if a guilty person is killed then it depends on many different reasons whether it is justified or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not.

Oops69

After all the recent scandals you would think the gardai might want to keep their heads down , but no , they put our this provocative suggestion , just proves the culture of arrogance within the force.

Glenster

Simple solution, all Gardaí wear balaclavas all the time.

Reati

Glenster wrote: »

Simple solution, all Gardaí wear balaclavas all the time.

Works for the ERU lol

tayto lover

Reati wrote: »

Your ignoring the point and continuing with your strawman. You can't find one post from me that says that but says a lot about you how you try to twist the point.

On the contrary I put a question to you which you refused to answer.
Again, do you not see the danger in the case I gave?

irishman86

Oops69 wrote: »

After all the recent scandals you would think the gardai might want to keep their heads down , but no , they put our this provocative suggestion , just proves the culture of arrogance within the force.

Well have a look at who makes up the brunt of the force, lads who failed college, played GAA and a small percentage of lads who wanted to do it growing up.
Our local force who I dont really have a problem with bar a couple of **** are ok. But the lads I know who left the town to become guards, obviously stationed elsewhere were definitely not the cream of the crop. One stole a cheque book and was cashing them in the petrol stations where people knew him :pac: the other had to pay 20k to pay off a lad who he put in hospital.
Thats only this year recruits, its constantly been that breed from when I knew lads joining

slovakchick

Can we then still take photos of garda photos or will that be banned also?

AudreyHepburn

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And perhaps if you took off your rose tinted glasses you might actually see the ramifications of this proposal.
The Garda are not above the law, as long as they like anyone else act within the law then why would they or their families feel threatened?
This is directly in response to a conflict with water charge protesters and Garda, the only reason I see this being an issue is if the Garda are acting badly.

Also can I suggest you stop trying to make assumptions to my own experiences it just makes your argument sounds silly!
I have never been on the wrong side of the Garda, none of my family have ever been wronged.
I just need to look at the state of the country, our politicians, corruption within An Gardi and being from Donegal it has been shocking...

As much as I understand there are good Garda and bad ones out there I do not trust the Garda to act with integrity always... Policing will always have corruption and in most "free" countries they have tried to combat this by putting camera's on police officers not banning the recording of them.

People need to be able to protect themselves if they feel threatened an attempt to make it illegal to record an officer is madness!
Protect the establishment at the cost of the public is how I would see this.

As I said I am not going to argue with you any longer.....you clearly have a chip on your shoulder, even you if refuse to admit it.

If you can't see the need for the Gardai to protect themselves and their families from abuse and harassment then you need to take a good hard look at yourself.

Reati

tayto lover wrote: »

Reati wrote: »

Your ignoring the point and continuing with your strawman. You can't find one post from me that says that but says a lot about you how you try to twist the point.

On the contrary I put a question to you which you refused to answer.
Again, do you not see the danger in the case I gave?

I've answered it several times in the thread already. I've also said I support them in a law that makes it an offense to do harass Gardaí or there familys online via social media.

What you continue to ignore and naively refuse to believe is that this purposed ban will have no impact on your exact scenario. A drug dealer with a grudge isn't going to let a ban on someone taking photos stop him from targeting that garda.