Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

FrancieBrady · 01-07-2017 08:18PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Emoting? Do you even know what that means?

Anyway, the Guards did arrest Paul Murphy and charged him with false imprisonment. Glad to see you agree with them.

And the jury decided to throw that charge out, they weren't guilty of it. Very simple this.

PS you are 'emoting' about stuff there is no evidence that the 6 were involved in. Much as you and others want them to have been.

Professor Moriarty · 01-07-2017 08:22PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the jury decided to throw that charge out, they weren't guilty of it. Very simple this.

Indeed. And we agree that Murphy should have been arrested. Simples.

FrancieBrady · 01-07-2017 08:37PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. And we agree that Murphy should have been arrested. Simples.

He wasn't arrested for the offences you outlined, are we back to convicting somebody without evidence or just because they were there?
Not sure what kind of state you wanna live in but you can live in it on your own.

Professor Moriarty · 01-07-2017 08:47PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He wasn't arrested for the offences you outlined, are we back to convicting somebody without evidence or just because they were there?
Not sure what kind of state you wanna live in but you can live in it on your own.

You personalise all of your posts. Don't be so touchy.

I said this (note the bit in bold):

Were the pensioners firing missiles at one particular person, shaking that person's car, pounding on their car, screaming abuse at the person? Did they have a TD with them who was asking them by megaphone if they should keep that person surrounded?

To which you replied (note the bit in bold):

If that happened, then they most certainly should be prosecuted.
You are emoting again, we were talking about blocking traffic.
The gardai should have arrested those doing what you outlined above and charged them with those offences. But they didn't

He was arrested for false imprisonment. Asking a bunch of thugs by megaphone if they want to keep a person from moving around freely constitutes grounds for arrest for false imprisonment. That's just a legal fact.

Anyway, as you said yourself, he should have been arrested. Pity he wasn't convicted.

Sweetemotion · 01-07-2017 08:52PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. And we agree that Murphy should have been arrested. Simples.

Ah here. Stop with that crap.

Trying to twist words for your own agenda. You just look stupid.

Professor Moriarty · 01-07-2017 08:52PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Ah here. Stop with that crap.

Trying to twist words for your own agenda. You just look stupid.

Great point.

FrancieBrady · 01-07-2017 09:37PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You personalise all of your posts. Don't be so touchy.

I said this (note the bit in bold):

Were the pensioners firing missiles at one particular person, shaking that person's car, pounding on their car, screaming abuse at the person? Did they have a TD with them who was asking them by megaphone if they should keep that person surrounded?

To which you replied (note the bit in bold):

If that happened, then they most certainly should be prosecuted.
You are emoting again, we were talking about blocking traffic.
The gardai should have arrested those doing what you outlined above and charged them with those offences. But they didn't

He was arrested for false imprisonment. Asking a bunch of thugs by megaphone if they want to keep a person from moving around freely constitutes grounds for arrest for false imprisonment. That's just a legal fact.

Anyway, as you said yourself, he should have been arrested. Pity he wasn't convicted.

??? Did you read the transcripts??
The judge dealt with what he said on the megaphone.
I suggest you stay away from the emotional stuff, do some reading of the actual evidence presented and come back.

01-07-2017 09:43PM

tayto lover wrote: »

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that the DPP prosecuted those whom she deemed to be the 'ringleaders', and not those who were shown in documented evidence to have been engaged in criminal activities.

I didn't see Paul Murphy banging on Joan Burton's ministerial car, or shaking it; did you?

He would be just as guilty in my eyes if he urged protesters to do that.

But there is no reason to believe that Paul Murphy urged anybody to do that, the DPP did not make such a claim. She claimed he was guilty of false imprisonment, not that he was guilty of (inctiement to)/ trespass to property or any inchoate statutory offence, such as a public order offence.

I don't know your own personal political outlook, but it strikes me as being rather ludicrous, that those who tend to place themselves on the 'law and order' side of political priorities, seem in this case to have such blatant disrespect for the Rule of Law and the stature of due legal process in Irish society.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The main goal of these activists,with perhaps a smidgin of "Freedom Fighting" ethos added to give a little flavour,is to destabilize,and eventually destroy our current system of Governance.

Having achieved that goal,we remain somewhat unclear as to what system these folks will replace it with,but unless they have developed some means of altering basic Human Nature,it won't be all that different from what we have now.

All it will do is change the people at the top-table,and you can bet your sweet bippy that Deputy Murphy and his associates will have their legs well under it.

A couple of problems with this.

I don't know anybody on the radical left who would describe themselves as a "freedom fighter". Quite the opposite. The cult of political & economic freedom is the earsplitting chant of those who tend to favour minimal political intervention in the national economy (except, of course, when they have their hand out)

Those who support Paul Murphy's politics could broadly be described as socialists; and not 'democratic socialists' or any of that rabble; but those who seek a political revolution in favour of those who are the tools and the human debris of an economy that favours those who seek more 'economic freedoms'; capitalist freedom fighters, if you will.

Paul Murphy could have, if he had chosen, stayed with his doctoral studies in law, and he would have had a far more lucrative career at the Bar or in academia. I do not believe he is a person who would trade political ideology for career advancement, but if he ever does, feel free to quote this tweet and have me eat my words.

Professor Moriarty · 01-07-2017 09:45PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

??? Did you read the transcripts??
The judge dealt with what he said on the megaphone.
I suggest you stay away from the emotional stuff, do some reading of the actual evidence presented and come back.

Sure. At least we agree that he should have been arrested.

Professor Moriarty · 01-07-2017 09:57PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But there is no reason to believe that Paul Murphy urged anybody to do that, the DPP did not make such a claim. She claimed he was guilty of false imprisonment, not that he was guilty of (inctiement to)/ trespass to property or any inchoate statutory offence, such as a public order offence.

I don't know your own personal political outlook, but it strikes me as being rather ludicrous, that those who tend to place themselves on the 'law and order' side of political priorities, seem in this case to have such blatant disrespect for the Rule of Law and the stature of due legal process in Irish society.

A couple of problems with this.

I don't know anybody on the radical left who would describe themselves as a "freedom fighter". Quite the opposite. The cult of political & economic freedom is the earsplitting chant of those who tend to favour minimal political intervention in the national economy (except, of course, when they have their hand out)

Those who support Paul Murphy's politics could broadly be described as socialists; and not 'democratic socialists' or any of that rabble; but those who seek a political revolution in favour of those who are the tools and the human debris of an economy that favours those who seek more 'economic freedoms'; capitalist freedom fighters, if you will.

Paul Murphy could have, if he had chosen, stayed with his doctoral studies in law, and he would have had a far more lucrative career at the Bar or in academia. I do not believe he is a person who would trade political ideology for career advancement, but if he ever does, feel free to quote this tweet and have me eat my words.

Eurosceptic Trot?

FrancieBrady · 01-07-2017 10:00PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. At least we agree that he should have been arrested.

If he committed an offence he should have been, like anybody else.
Do you accept that he is not guilty of the charge of do you know better, patently unaware of the actual evidence presented.

end of the road · 01-07-2017 10:02PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

They certainly should have been charged with public disorder.

would have cost to much and been a waste of time money and resources. they didn't do anything wrong, just inconvenienced people.

01-07-2017 10:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If he committed an offence he should have been, like anybody else.

Not at all.

The evidential standard of proof required for a lawful arrest is a 'reasonable suspicion' of having committed a crime; which is a long way off the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard, which is required for a verdict of guilt.

There is no known basis upon which to accuse the Gardai of having acted illegally on arresting Paul Murphy and everyone else who has been acquitted.

The nature of the (dawn) arrest, as well as the prior notice that was given to chosen members of the media, should indeed be investigated. That is where the major cause of concern is.

Professor Moriarty · 01-07-2017 10:11PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If he committed an offence he should have been, like anybody else.
Do you accept that he is not guilty of the charge of do you know better, patently unaware of the actual evidence presented.

I accept the verdict. But agree with you that he should have been arrested.

FrancieBrady · 01-07-2017 10:15PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Not at all.

The evidential standard of proof required for a lawful arrest is a 'reasonable suspicion' of having committed a crime; which is a long way off the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard, which is required for a verdict of guilt.

There is no known basis upon which to accuse the Gardai of having acted illegally on arresting Paul Murphy and everyone else who has been acquitted.

The nature of the (dawn) arrest, as well as the prior notice that was given to chosen members of the media, should indeed be investigated. That is where the major cause of concern is.

And garda evidence giving.

01-07-2017 10:22PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And garda evidence giving.

True.

It is true that human memory can be frail; we are all capable of false recollections. That's human nature.

But for three false recollections to all corroborate one another exactly, and only be disproven by the happenstance of helicopter recording? That seems worthy of examination.

FrancieBrady · 01-07-2017 10:30PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

True.

It is true that human memory can be frail; we are all capable of false recollections. That's human nature.

But for three false recollections to all corroborate one another exactly, and only be disproven by the happenstance of helicopter recording? That seems worthy of examination.

And taking into account recent garda history. It cannot be ignored although, true to form FG have ruled out a closer look, preferring instead to keep the finger pointed at people who have been acquitted.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 08:29AM

The opinion of a solicitor adds more grist to the calls for an enquiry
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/charges-in-jobstown-trial-were-over-the-top-says-solicitor-35885878.html

imme · 02-07-2017 08:58AM

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

So what about the 16 year old who was previously convicted?

Hopefully his conviction quashed and his name is cleared.

Were they convicted of false imprisonment?

Their case was a separate case to this one.

If you were convicted of drunk driving and I was not convicted of the same thing does that mean you should have your conviction quashed?

Overall is this a question of leadership, rights or stupid people

Paul Murphy still creeps the fook out of me

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 09:16AM

imme wrote: »

Were they convicted of false imprisonment?

Their case was a separate case to this one.

If you were convicted of drunk driving and I was not convicted of the same thing does that mean you should have your conviction quashed?

Overall is this a question of leadership, rights or stupid people

Paul Murphy still creeps the fook out of me

The 16 year old admitted to his offence - breaking the rear window of a Garda car.. He also said in his testimony that he had no political affiliations or interest. Which backs up what the 6 said and refutes what others say about the motivations of those who were violent that day.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 10:55AM

end of the road wrote: »

would have cost to much and been a waste of time money and resources. they didn't do anything wrong, just inconvenienced people.

Yes. Yes they should have. Eirigi are not a bright bunch.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 10:57AM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Yes. Yes they should have. Eirigi are not a bright bunch.

And the pensioners too?

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 11:04AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the pensioners too?

What about barney?

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 11:06AM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What about barney?

It's clear you only wish that the power of the law be excercised on people of your choice.

Shocking inability to be consistent.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 11:08AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's clear you only wish that the power of the law be excercised on people of your choice.

Shocking inability to be consistent.

Nope. I'm not normalising what murphy and mates did.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 11:31AM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Nope. I'm not normalising what murphy and mates did.

You were asked would you advocate the jailing/trial of pensioners who did exactly the same thing that these protestors did. Stop trying to slip out of the question. Pathetic stuff.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 11:40AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were asked would you advocate the jailing/trial of pensioners who did exactly the same thing that these protestors did. Stop trying to slip out of the question. Pathetic stuff.

I'm not interested in your what aboutery. Open a thread about the pensioners. That's your crusade not mine.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 11:42AM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I'm not interested in your what aboutery. Open a thread about the pensioners. That's your crusade not mine.

Yes you are just interested in jailing those you don't like.

02-07-2017 11:46AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 16 year old admitted to his offence - breaking the rear window of a Garda car.. He also said in his testimony that he had no political affiliations or interest. Which backs up what the 6 said and refutes what others say about the motivations of those who were violent that day.

There was another lad who pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty in a juvenile court and got a suspended sentence. He's appealing.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 11:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

There was another lad who pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty in a juvenile court and got a suspended sentence. He's appealing.

Yes, I was referring to the one who wasn't charged with false imprisonment.

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Comments