Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

the_pen_turner

Sad day for the country.
I didn't think we could fall any lower

How can they let this kind of thuggery be allowed.

I'm all for peacefully protest but this wasn't.
They should have been dragged out of the way by force.

Allinall

sbsquarepants wrote: »

So you reckon this was an entirely apolitical case?
That the DPP took a look at the available evidence and actually thought this was a clear cut case of a government minister being falsely imprisoned and it best served the public to press charges?


Is that really what you think?


Not even a hint of an auld personal vendetta about it no?

Way to not answer a question.

ooter

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

He was nothing but a little uneducated scumbag who saw an opportunity to cause trouble. He deserved to be convicted and hopefully the period for appeal has expired and the little scroate is stuck with the conviction.

I think "fcuking dregs" are the words you're looking for.

Brooklyn Yummy Cookbook wrote: »

Terrible decision, Murphy and co are a total disgrace and should have been punished. Pure scum with plenty of idiots supporting them.

Them tears are salty..

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The protest was bang out order but not surprising considering the mood in the country at the time and people's frustration with the air of "you have a right to peaceful protest which we will then completely ignore, always". The strength of feeling about water charges was bizarre but it was more of a last-straw thing combined with anger at how it was being enforced.

None of which makes what happened on the day right, and I have a lot of sympathy for Burton. But fcuking dawn raids, arresting kids and a ridiculous choice of charges just makes it pretty obvious that this was essentially political policing, quite beside the fact that gards seem to have committed perjury. Public order offences or something, fair enough, but charging them with false imprisonment was a total own goal.

Boggy Turf

eviltwin wrote: »

Good, the whole case was a farce. I wonder how much it cost putting on that charade.

From the moment Paul Murphy was arrested in a "dawn raid" by 6 good members of the Gardaí when he could have been quietly tapped on the shoulder any day of the week in the Dáil, I knew it was political policing and that it would become a wasteful farce.

Yet again, the Gardaí and our political elite appear foolish (at the very least). Corrupt is probably the most apt word.
.

Boggy Turf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

An outrageous waste of tax payer's money in an essential effort to silence political dissent and discourage peaceful protest. Everything about this was an unseemly charade, from the ridiculous decision to have 8 Gardai arrest Murphy to the decision to push for the most severe charges possible. Justice has been done, and I hope Murphy is emboldened to continue his activist brand of politics.

Most accurate post yet. Well said.

Supercell

Was it a monumental waste of taxpayers money?
Yes.

What would the verdict have been if this was N Korea, China, Egypt and countless other countries? (if it even got to a trial)

Be thankful we live in a place where our political masters cannot crush us like ants so easily because they were minorly inconvenienced.
I am for one proud to live in such a country.

Bródúil as bheith Éireannach.

sbsquarepants

Allinall wrote: »

Way to not answer a question.

Em, is that your answer?:rolleyes:

I'll clear things up so.

Allinall wrote: »

What specifically did the government have to do with this case?

And which government, for that matter?

Ok.

It is my belief that the government (when I say government I mean the government of Ireland, in which our heroine, Joan of Arc, was in fact a minister) brought political pressure to bear on both the DPP and the Police force to very publicly and flamboyantly proceed with what turned out to be fairly farcical case, so as to both punish and discredit political opponents during a particularly vociferous campaign against charges that said government were struggling to impose on a population already milked dry.

Now -

Do you disagree?

Do you feel the case was taken on merit?

Did you believe Joans "evidence"?

Do you feel the correct verdict was reached in the end?

Infini

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Sad day for the country.
I didn't think we could fall any lower

How can they let this kind of thuggery be allowed.

I'm all for peacefully protest but this wasn't.
They should have been dragged out of the way by force.

IMO they shouldnt have been trialled on the charges they were being charged with tbh simply because it was sheer overkill, over the top and completely excessive. At the most it should have been public disorder at the most or lower charges. The fact that they were trying to convict them on charges that could have resulted in Life is IMO why they were right to acquit them as it really did look less like justice but more of a witch hunt and attempt at being vindictive.

As for what happened that day the guards arent kitted out for this sort of thing because theyre hamstrung by PC bull on one hand and not fit for purpose resources on the other. In most other countries its not an issue because if it gets too far out of hand its basically one warning then the riot squad is sent in to round em up, toss em in the van and maybe charge them at most with public disorder offences which fit the offence.

TLDR: They deserved to be aquitted as they were being charged with disproportionate offences.

VinLieger

LOL at the pictures of these eejits cheering and shouting about justice being done outside the courthouse while the sheep behind them hold up signs saying "no faith in the system"..... well which is it? Or is it as usual the loony left want it both ways depending on which one suits them best at the time?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL at the pictures of these eejits cheering and shouting about justice being done outside the courthouse while the sheep behind them hold up signs saying "no faith in the system"..... well which is it? Or is it as usual the loony left want it both ways depending on which one suits them best at the time?

Fairly obvious that they shouldn't have even been taken to this point by the 'system'. Which does seem to always be aligned to whosoever is in power.

McCrack

Adrienne Dry Ref wrote: »

I still can't believe this trial went ahead so I'm happy with this verdict. I really dislike Paul Murphy and I think the behaviour of many of those in attendance at the protest was dreadful. I would not condone a lot of what went on at all. But I just cannot see how this could ever have been false imprisonment - pursuing that charge as opposed to other lesser charges makes me very suspicious of the motivations of the DPP and the powers that be. The carry on surrounding the arrest of Murphy was also ridiculous. The garda evidence was unreliable and leaves me further doubting their credibility as an organisation. I understand people who think the protestors deserve to face some sort of charges for their behaviour but I just can't even remotely see how anyone could legitimately think false imprisonment charges were appropriate.

Overall this trial would leave me, as an ordinary Joe not involved in any way with water charges or anti austerity protests etc, feeling very concerned with the conduct of the gardai and with little confidence in how the state decides prosecute cases.

Defination of false imprisonment:


False imprisonment.

15.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—

(a) takes or detains, or

(b) causes to be taken or detained, or

(c) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of,

another without that other's consent

I was of the view the car was surrounded for at least two hours. It was a hostile crowd. The occupants couldn't get out and the car could not move as it was surrounded.

In my eyes that is false imprisonment both in the ordinary meaning and the legal meaning above and for that reason I am disappointment with the jury decision however I do respect it.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fairly obvious that they shouldn't have even been taken to this point by the 'system'. Which does seem to always be aligned to whosoever is in power.

Well obviously its not if they are found not guilty surely? Your saying that those in power control the system while at the same time these 6 seem to have been found not guilty thus also proving those in power don't have control of the system, again I ask which is it?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Well obviously its not if they are found not guilty surely? Your saying that those in power control the system while at the same time these 6 seem to have been found not guilty thus also proving those in power don't have control of the system, again I ask which is it?

The 'system' brought these people to trial not knowing that the evidence would convince a jury that they were not guilty and a judge to more or less infer that gardai were lying.
The 'system' that brought these people to trial is different (we hope) to the justice system.
It's perfectly fair comment to say 'you have no faith in the system' and still celebrate the fact that justice was done in one case.
Silly little rant there Vin.

Rumpy Pumpy

freshpopcorn wrote: »

However, I honestly don't trust Paul Murphy one little bit. Theirs just something about him and I can't put my finger on it.

It's the cold, dead eyes. Always gives it away.

keano_afc

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Breaking News. Paul Murphy has exploded outside the court house in what appears to be the first reported case of human combustion due to excessive pride, hubris and pomposity.

Nah Colm O'Gorman beat him to that.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'system' brought these people to trial not knowing that the evidence would convince a jury that they were not guilty and a judge to more or less infer that gardai were lying.
The 'system' that brought these people to trial is different (we hope) to the justice system.
It's perfectly fair comment to say 'you have no faith in the system' and still celebrate the fact that justice was done in one case.
Silly little rant there Vin.

I distinctly remember countless left talking heads at the time of Jury selection claiming that the limitations placed on Jury members proved the system was stacked against them though?

Im not having a rant just pointing out the blatant double think on display today

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

I distinctly remember countless left talking heads at the time of Jury selection claiming that the limitations placed on Jury members proved the system was stacked against them though?

And?

The 'system' referred to doesn't have sway with a jury nor with (we hope) a judge.

Those two factors were the critical ones here.

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And?

The 'system' referred to doesn't have sway with a jury nor with (we hope) a judge.

Those two factors were the critical ones here.

The DPP was absolutely right to prosecute this. I don't agree with the verdict but justice has been served and been seen to have been served.

daveyeh

JOBSTOWN SAYS NO TO WATER

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And?

The 'system' referred to doesn't have sway with a jury nor with (we hope) a judge.

Those two factors were the critical ones here.

Yes the Jury was critical in finding them innocent however many of their supporters at the time were shouting how the Jury was being stacked against them by "the system".

How do you square that circle?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes the Jury was critical in finding them innocent however many of their supporters at the time were shouting how the Jury was being stacked against them by "the system".

How do you square that circle?

It was a perfectly legitimate point of view at the time.
Remember there were plenty on here and elsewhere who thought these people were automatically guilty.
Nobody knew what was going to be revealed at the trial though, which obviously was enough to convince a jury that they were not guilty and allow a judge to infer that gardai (part of the 'system') were lying.

Zebra3

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The DPP was absolutely right to prosecute this. I don't agree with the verdict but justice has been served and been seen to have been served.

A charge of kidnapping against peaceful protestors?

If a similar protest had taken place involving farmers, do you think we'd have seen the same course of action by the DPP? :rolleyes:

From the coverage of this trial the last few days, the jury was essentially instructed by the judge in a not guilty verdict

Seems very strange to me. Clear enough that a mob detained an elected representative against her will. I'm sure the legal system will be satisfied, as well as fans of mobs.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was a perfectly legitimate point of view at the time.
Remember there were plenty on here and elsewhere who thought these people were automatically guilty.
Nobody knew what was going to be revealed at the trial though, which obviously was enough to convince a jury that they were not guilty and allow a judge to infer that gardai (part of the 'system') were lying.

How did they convince a stacked jury though? Surely the idea of a stacked jury is that evidence dpesnt matter? Or is it possible the jury wasnt stacked and those claims like other left conspiracy theories will disappear into the ether when they grab onto whatever next weeks de riguer outrage is?

Professor Moriarty

Zebra3 wrote: »

A charge of kidnapping against peaceful protestors?

If a similar protest had taken place involving farmers, do you think we'd have seen the same course of action by the DPP? :rolleyes:

I would certainly hope so. We'll have to see what happens when the IFA surrounds a minister's car and intimidates the occupants for two hours.

sbsquarepants

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The DPP was absolutely right to prosecute this. I don't agree with the verdict but justice has been served and been seen to have been served.

How is that not a contradiction?

How can justice be served, but the verdict be wrong?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

How did they convince a stacked jury though? Surely the idea of a stacked jury is that evidence dpesnt matter? Or is it possible the jury wasnt stacked and those claims like other left conspiracy theories will disappear into the ether when they grab onto whatever next weeks de riguer outrage is?

You can stack a jury, you cannot guarantee what that jury will decide though if the evidence is so overwhelming the judge directs the jury to ignore the critical evidence givers.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that the 'system' believed or needed these men to be guilty. They did their 'best' to ensure a guilty verdict. It didn't work.

A Dub in Glasgo

McCrack wrote: »

Defination of false imprisonment:


False imprisonment.

15.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—

(a) takes or detains, or

(b) causes to be taken or detained, or

(c) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of,

another without that other's consent

I was of the view the car was surrounded for at least two hours. It was a hostile crowd. The occupants couldn't get out and the car could not move as it was surrounded.

In my eyes that is false imprisonment both in the ordinary meaning and the legal meaning above and for that reason I am disappointment with the jury decision however I do respect it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103945524&postcount=99

r93kaey5p2izun

VinLieger wrote: »

How did they convince a stacked jury though? Surely the idea of a stacked jury is that evidence dpesnt matter? Or is it possible the jury wasnt stacked and those claims like other left conspiracy theories will disappear into the ether when they grab onto whatever next weeks de riguer outrage is?

I thought the concerns regarding the jury were that the formula suggested (but not actually adopted) included exclusion of anyone from Jobstown or Tallaght and anyone who had expressed an opinion on water charges in any public media. I can certainly see why there would be concern while that formula was under consideration. But the actual selection process was not so restrictive.