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
Medical student assaults girlfriend
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
PeterParker957 wrote: »I know this is going to be thrown back at me in seconds but I have nothing against women. I am one. I was raised by a strong woman- married to my dad.
I have a problem with people - male or female - treating women like we are different. We're not. We're people, we're equal. If we start a fight then we have to accept that it may go south.
For the sake of avoiding a pointless argument, I'll take your claim that you are a woman at face value. Also, maybe all the people who say you seem to have something against women (despite definitely being one) are somehow all misinterpreting loads of your posts.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
PeterParker957 wrote: »I know this is going to be thrown back at me in seconds but I have nothing against women. I am one. I was raised by a strong woman- married to my dad.
I have a problem with people - male or female - treating women like we are different. We're not. We're people, we're equal. If we start a fight then we have to accept that it may go south.
For the sake of avoiding a pointless argument, I'll take your claim that you are a woman at face value. Also, maybe all the people who say you seem to have something against women (despite definitely being one) are somehow all misinterpreting loads of your posts.
Thank you.
No they're not. But they're misinterpreting my overall meaning.
We're not unequal. We never have been. We may have been treated as such by society in the past of course. But society changed. I'm concerned for the next generations of women that it's changed too far the other way.
I've been treated like a person with valid opinions by men. I've worked in what would be considered traditionally male industries with no issues.
I currently work with a largely female group. I'm considered wierd by them because I'm interested in sports, have zero interest in kids, make up, "boys" or the usual.
I'm not anti women. I'm anti what the younger generation seem to want us to be.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Call it the knowledge that 20 years of court work brings.
You don't have the slightest clue of how cases are run. The more you post, the more this becomes apparent.
She wasn't there to give evidence. There was no analysis of her conduct. And I have already explained the role of the Garda, you saying "they give the facts...the facts...the FACTS" doesn't change their role. Incidentally the Garda is absolutely there on behalf of the prosecution, that's fairly basic stuff in the adversarial system.
Prison escort? Porter? Cleaner? If you don't understand the importance of fact in law, 20 years experience working in a building means squat. The report in the paper quotes the Garda giving the facts of the case. Not a 'brief summary'. As you will know, from 20 years experience
, a judge never deals in brief summaries, s/he deals with facts and facts only. No time for jackonorey, no matter how brief. Facts only. No avoiding that one. Fairly basic stuff as you'd say.
She wasn't there to give evidence, we all know that, and there was no analysis of her conduct......in court or the report. I NEVER said there was! She wasn't required to give evidence. But to say she was never asked what happened by the Gardai after the event is simply ridiculous. Its beyond ridiculous. No it wasn't reported, but does it need to be reported in the paper to understand she would have been questioned, for the facts. You're digging holes here.0 -
As you will know, from 20 years experience, a judge never deals in brief summaries, s/he deals with facts and facts only. No time for jackonorey, no matter how brief. Facts only. No avoiding that one. Fairly basic stuff as you'd say.
Not an iota.
But look, if you think a Garda giving evidence of an incident amounts to objective fact, clearly I won't change your mind. And we are both happy, you with your unquestioning trust in Garda infallibilty, and me amused at your complete misunderstanding of the procedures in criminal cases and the roles of the parties.0 -
-
-
There you go again! I never once said a Garda giving evidence amounts to objective fact. Keep digging.
Ok, I'm a nice guy and I'll give you a brief overview.
When a person pleads guilty to assault, the victim need not be there, there is no need to give evidence. The Garda (who is there as part of the Prosecution and not some arbiter of fact) is asked to outline the matter. The word "facts" is simply used as shorthand to distinguish that evidence from opinion. Of course they are not established facts at all, and certainly not your belief that "because the Garda said it, it happened" or "fact...facts...FACTS". Indeed very often that evidence will contain incorrect assertions, the Garda will go easy as it's been arranged with the defence lawyers beforehand. Not some big conspiracy, a one minute chat in which the Garda will say "well if he's pleading guilty, I won't remember his previous convictions" etc. The Garda is very much there as part of the prosecution but s/he will usually be pragmatic too.
If the assertion is made that the victim committed an assault, a lot of Judges will very sharply remind everyone that the victim is not on trial and not represented and it's a very dangerous road to go down. What you have done is take some remark made by the Garda as establishing that she committed an assault. You completely miss the point of a trial, it is an examination of the conduct of the accused. She did not have the chance to rebut that comment and most obviously it was not subject to the ultimate test of the veracity of any evidence, the cross exam. It's pretty worthless really, nothing turns on it, and not too much should be inferred from it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Ok, I'm a nice guy and I'll give you a brief overview.
When a person pleads guilty to assault, the victim need not be there, there is no need to give evidence. The Garda (who is there as part of the Prosecution and not some arbiter of fact) is asked to outline the matter. The word "facts" is simply used as shorthand to distinguish that evidence from opinion. Of course they are not established facts at all, and certainly not your belief that "because the Garda said it, it happened" or "fact...facts...FACTS". Indeed very often that evidence will contain incorrect assertions, the Garda will go easy as it's been arranged with the defence lawyers beforehand. Not some big conspiracy, a one minute chat in which the Garda will say "well if he's pleading guilty, I won't remember his previous convictions" etc. The Garda is very much there as part of the prosecution but s/he will usually be pragmatic too.
If the assertion is made that the victim committed an assault, a lot of Judges will very sharply remind everyone that the victim is not on trial and not represented and it's a very dangerous road to go down. What you have done is take some remark made by the Garda as establishing that she committed an assault. You completely miss the point of a trial, it is an examination of the conduct of the accused. She did not have the chance to rebut that comment and most obviously it was not subject to the ultimate test of the veracity of any evidence, the cross exam. It's pretty worthless really, nothing turns on it, and not too much should be inferred from it. What in the hell are you talking about? Not sure why you bothered with all that..........as a matter of interest when did I ever take a remark made by a Garda to establish she committed an assault? 0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement