I love the Garda !!!!!!!

eth0_ wrote:

*YAWWWWNNN* Socialist workers party propaganda, snore. Fight the power, etcetera.

Go to bed

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetantaL
Bull**** bull****, added in some more bull**** etc


hahahaha, I love the way people always have a 'story' to tell about their 'friend' or 'brother' or sometimes believe it or not, themselves :P.

There are so many holes in that story it's ridiculous. It is also very difficult to work out what your saying in your story as well mind you. I'll just point at the biggest hole which destroys the whole story and yet you try to hide the lie inside it.

You say your mate was arrested for drug possession and questioned in a Garda station and then later charged with Drunken disorderly blah blah. Right.
- By what your saying its in a pub, hence most likely past 12am if they have had 6pints etc etc.
- They are drunk at this stage.
- This is the 1st time somebody has ever smoked a skin infront of that guard and they cant tell the different between tobacco and a bit of snooch.


Right lets look at the rules here.
- If somebody is drunk, you cant hold them for questioning. So thats bollox. You also cant question somebody past 12am without their express permission so thats bollox 2.
- If for some insane reason they still decided to hold them like you say, that would be unlawful detention and the fact its down on paper they were arrested there's no way out. Also, senior Gardai would have to know about a detention of a drugs nature and they'd be in **** because thats kinda a big deal.

What really happened?
Some lads acted like smart asses while drunk. Got arrested. Made some bull**** up while they were in the cell for being drunk and abusive etc and came out with this story which makes the guards look stupid and the person an angel who was fighting back because 'they' will not be picked on anymore, down with this sort of thing! Careful now!

Dont even bother saying " But there was a court case an all blah blah". Lets hypothetically say there was. It was a District court case where the lads didnt want to be prosecuted for anything, so daddy hires a expensive solicitor, barristers only operate in Circuit courts or higher, and any solicitor worth there salt who is getting paid €200 an hour will easily have a puny drunk and disorderly case thrown out in a heart beat. The Judge would have dismissed the bloody case if it was there 1st time up in court, the solicitor wouldnt tell you that for sure, gimmie cash please!

Peolple will always believe what they want to believe.

But for the benefit of others as you will most likely dismiss this out of hand, this isn't a story about a friend of a friend. i was there. i witnessed it. I was in court. I was listed as a witness there too. Now I can name the Barrister, Judge, Guard, Court and case date and number if you want, but as pointed out earlier this may annoy the mods but it's a true story so it's not libel. (I'm a solicitor by the way) If you want these details pm me.

In relation to the internal procedural rules, the guardai do not have to tell you your rights unless you expressly ask for them. Fact. Now I do not personally know whether you cannot be interrogated after 12 without your express permission but I doubt it. "Excuse me Mr. Criminal, may I question you?, Sorry seargant it's past my bedtime. Oh, right-o, see you tmorrow." Riiiiiight. Litigation isn't my specialty and it's a while since I brushed up on internal procedures in criminal law.

They were arrested and searched on suspicion of having drugs in their possession. If you had bothered to read my original post, one of the lads took a rollie off us and ran off down the street. He had just come out of the bar, was locked and saw my friend smoking with his back to the guards. Then he took the rollie and ran off down the street. That brought the guards attention to him and they arrested him.

In relation to Senior guardai being there, maybe they were. Two guards sat him down and started asking him "Who's your dealer" etc, We're talking about a joint here though, not a kilo of coke. I don't think they'd ring the justice minister just yet. Especially when a search of our stuff turned up nothing. In the morning they presented him with a summons for being drunk and disorderly. They couldn't prove he had drugs, but i can see their thinking, let's blacken him now so that we have an excuse to search him in future.

Now in relation to your point about the barrister and the court case, Barristers often work in the District courts. In fact 90% of contested driving offences will have a barrister conducting them as if you have expert knowledge of traffic offences law it's not that hard to squash most things. The reason a Barrister was brough it was the fact that this was his second time up. the Guards had brought him up for directing traffic a few weeks earlier which he led no contest to and was fined € 250 for. Now, perevious offences cannot be entered into the record when you are in court. Each case is judged on it's own merits, that's why the case was thrown out when the senior guard cross examining tried to bring that into evidence.

Now, once again litigation isn't my specialty. I'm corporate but I would guess that in 90% of Drunk and disorderly cases where it's a basic fine the solicitor will tell you to plead guilty. it's different if you're going around punching people and the like. It's very very difficult to get a drunk and disorderly case squashed contrarry to your opinion. Public drunkeness is a crime and no solicitor can present you as sober in retrospect. on first offences most judges will apply the probabion act, this is entirely different from getting off scott free. You seem to think different, I'd like to meet your solicitor.

Now judging by the venom dripping from your posts your proabably some sort of guard. I'm not trying to blacken the guards, they do a tremendous public service. But absolute power curropts absolutely. On of my best mates just went into Templemore last Monday. The procedural rules and lee-way afforded to guardai have been shown to have been seriously broken in the past. Look at what happened in Donegal ffs, when an innocent family was victimised -Frank and Frank Junior McBrearty, or the guardai kicking seven shades of ****e out of that teenager in Tipp who died in the cells and who's family are still trying to get to the bottom of it. Look, in any organisation you are going to have a few bad eggs, but the report that came out recently advocated serious changes to the structure of the guardai and a more transparent complaints procedure. If you are victimised by a guard, where can you go? Into that same station and complain to one of his colleagues? Get real.

Until you start recognising that there is a problem and revisions have to be made you cannot change anything and burying your head in the sand and blaming the messenger won't help anything but present you as a prejudiced person.

tallaght01 wrote:

I think part of the problem is that the gardai don't endear themselves to the population, so people are more likely to believe negative stories about them. Essentially, many people would argue that, given their experiences, the gardai are capable of an abuse of power. I think a lot of people find the gardai to be rude generally. Most people, I would imagine, have a story about a rude garda.
I was in the car with me sister a while ago in Dublin. A cop stopped her and accused her of a traffic offence. The traffic signs on this particular road had changed, so what my sis was doing was now legal, whereas previously it wasn't (I think it was that you were now allowed a left hand turn, or something minor like that). The cop hadn't noticed the new sign. No big deal, you'd imagine. But the dogs abuse her gave her. It was ages before she could get in a word to show him the new roadsign. he then let her go, quite begrudgingly. It was as if she was still in the wrong.No apology or nothing.

I was in Crumlin a couple of years ago meeting a mate. I was just wandering down the street, when 2 cops stopped me. I'm not againsts random stops to be honest. But they treated me like dirt. "Where are your drugs?" They asked me straight out. Obviously, I don't take drugs so didn't have any on me. But, again, when they had completed the search in the middle of the busy street, they just said "go on, get out of here". No apology or anything. Still treating me like a criminal. Compare that with the cops you meet on holidays in new York for eg. Some of the cops I met in Times square were the friendliest people you could ever meet. None of this proves anything, of course. My experiences don't make all gardai bad people. But my experiences cloud my judgement, and as a result I'm more likely to believe stories such as those told by the OP, rather than stories about, say, postmen. And I don't think my experience of the gardai are unique.

ill agree there are bad gardai, of course there are.
but it seems to be on here, that if someone has a bad encounter with a guard, that therefore, all guards are corrupt/bad/on a power trip etc

CiaranC wrote:

On the other hand, you have the people who assume that anyone who have any dealings with the Gardai are automatically guilty of some offence or other and deserve everything the most corrupt Gard gives them.

Few people are like that though. The first and second points are separate I think, you get those who think that anyone who has dealing with the Gardaí are guilty of something and those who think that someone who has committed some crime (generally serious: rape etc) deserves to get beaten etc.

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

If the OP thinks his treatment is bad he should try staggering drunk on the road in Los Angeles where he can experience the joy of two bulky LAPD guys with their knees in his back while forcefully pulling his arms to cuff him.

And it well works!

cson wrote:

But is America a safer country than here?

No. LA is the single most dangerous place in America to be a cop......hence they need to use that force.It works relative to the scum they have there.They keep them under control more than if they employed the tactics used here.Its a different animal that the LAPD deal with,and that force does work there.They have to employ it with everybody though or it'll be 'rascist' because of the mix there.PLus Us cops take a more hands on approach anyway.Like I say its needed.

Downtown LA is like being on the set of 'The Shield'

:rolleyes:

lemansky wrote:

No. LA is the single most dangerous place in America to be a cop......hence they need to use that force.It works relative to the scum they have there.They keep them under control more than if they employed the tactics used here.Its a different animal that the LAPD deal with,and that force does work there.They have to employ it with everybody though or it'll be 'rascist' because of the mix there.PLus Us cops take a more hands on approach anyway.Like I say its needed.

its actually quite the opposite. criminologist have accounted the police force giving criminals more respect and treatign people with dignity as one of the reasons why crime is falling. Being heavy handed only causes a resentment from the ordinary individuals and hatred from the criminals.

SetantaL wrote:

Peolple will always believe what they want to believe.

But for the benefit of others as you will most likely dismiss this out of hand, this isn't a story about a friend of a friend. i was there. i witnessed it. I was in court. I was listed as a witness there too. Now I can name the Barrister, Judge, Guard, Court and case date and number if you want, but as pointed out earlier this may annoy the mods but it's a true story so it's not libel. (I'm a solicitor by the way) If you want these details pm me.

In relation to the internal procedural rules, the guardai do not have to tell you your rights unless you expressly ask for them. Fact. Now I do not personally know whether you cannot be interrogated after 12 without your express permission but I doubt it. "Excuse me Mr. Criminal, may I question you?, Sorry seargant it's past my bedtime. Oh, right-o, see you tmorrow." Riiiiiight. Litigation isn't my specialty and it's a while since I brushed up on internal procedures in criminal law.

They were arrested and searched on suspicion of having drugs in their possession. If you had bothered to read my original post, one of the lads took a rollie off us and ran off down the street. He had just come out of the bar, was locked and saw my friend smoking with his back to the guards. Then he took the rollie and ran off down the street. That brought the guards attention to him and they arrested him.

In relation to Senior guardai being there, maybe they were. Two guards sat him down and started asking him "Who's your dealer" etc, We're talking about a joint here though, not a kilo of coke. I don't think they'd ring the justice minister just yet. Especially when a search of our stuff turned up nothing. In the morning they presented him with a summons for being drunk and disorderly. They couldn't prove he had drugs, but i can see their thinking, let's blacken him now so that we have an excuse to search him in future.

Now in relation to your point about the barrister and the court case, Barristers often work in the District courts. In fact 90% of contested driving offences will have a barrister conducting them as if you have expert knowledge of traffic offences law it's not that hard to squash most things. The reason a Barrister was brough it was the fact that this was his second time up. the Guards had brought him up for directing traffic a few weeks earlier which he led no contest to and was fined € 250 for. Now, perevious offences cannot be entered into the record when you are in court. Each case is judged on it's own merits, that's why the case was thrown out when the senior guard cross examining tried to bring that into evidence.

Now, once again litigation isn't my specialty. I'm corporate but I would guess that in 90% of Drunk and disorderly cases where it's a basic fine the solicitor will tell you to plead guilty. it's different if you're going around punching people and the like. It's very very difficult to get a drunk and disorderly case squashed contrarry to your opinion. Public drunkeness is a crime and no solicitor can present you as sober in retrospect. on first offences most judges will apply the probabion act, this is entirely different from getting off scott free. You seem to think different, I'd like to meet your solicitor.

Now judging by the venom dripping from your posts your proabably some sort of guard. I'm not trying to blacken the guards, they do a tremendous public service. But absolute power curropts absolutely. On of my best mates just went into Templemore last Monday. The procedural rules and lee-way afforded to guardai have been shown to have been seriously broken in the past. Look at what happened in Donegal ffs, when an innocent family was victimised -Frank and Frank Junior McBrearty, or the guardai kicking seven shades of ****e out of that teenager in Tipp who died in the cells and who's family are still trying to get to the bottom of it. Look, in any organisation you are going to have a few bad eggs, but the report that came out recently advocated serious changes to the structure of the guardai and a more transparent complaints procedure. If you are victimised by a guard, where can you go? Into that same station and complain to one of his colleagues? Get real.

Until you start recognising that there is a problem and revisions have to be made you cannot change anything and burying your head in the sand and blaming the messenger won't help anything but present you as a prejudiced person.

And people will always only read and understand post's a certain way.

It's amazing how you seem to point out things I have said in my post which you disagree with or back up with a point but then completely ignore all the valid points I made to you. Listen Im sure you can make up all the court cases, garda names, solicitors names, judges and case numbers you want but in reality we both know nobody is going to check them. Also, any case number given would most likely just show a case about public drunkeness and some traffic violation which isnt exactly ground breaking stuff.

You are 100% wrong about the Gardai not having to tell you your rights. They are absolutely responsible and completely liable to inform you of your rights and to make sure you understand them also. Thats a fact. Please do check with any civil rights movements, garda stations, department of justice. You should really know this as a solicitor man, Im guessing your a student solicitor so. A person does have to be asked if they wish to continue questioning past 12am, as if they dont anything they do say after that is inadmissable as evidence if they do not agree to continue with questioning. Also if your drunk you cant be held and questioned. That is really where your story falls down, you simply cant be questioned if your drunk, at anytime in the day.

I did read your post but you failed to read my reply. Ye they could have possibly been arrested for a search under the Misuse of drugs act but if they didnt have anything on them, they would have to be released and they certainly could not be detained for no reason. The only reason they could have been detained in the station was if they were arrested for drunk and disorderly, then they can be held for 6 hours to sober up. As I said, your mates had plently of time to think of a story in a cell which stands up well to scrutiny. Im guessing you were either one of the people arrested or just love lying so not to appear wrong, Im not sure.

The senior gardai would have been inspectors and superintendents who would have been in bed but would have to be immeadiately informed if somebody was being detained for a drugs offence as thats very serious. Nobody would be held in custody because they 'might' have had a joint on them........ They could have been asked about stuff like that by gards sitting around in the office as they were in the station but thats hardly being questioned. lets do a bit of sherlock holmes reasoning here. If he all of a sudden he had a summons for drunk in disorderly in the morning and not drug posession, when he says he was arrested for a drugs search and then held for some crazy reason when he had no drugs. What is more likely? I dont mean to answer for you but its not the latter anyway.

Well if 90% of barristers deal with driving offences I must be a blind man, they all tell me they are solicitors and not barristers. If you are thinking of serious driving offences that face penalties of prison terms, then yes they would use barristers but only if the case was put forward for election to go to the Circuit court as is normal procedure in a court, again you should know this if your a solicitor. Also, you wouldnt bring in a barrister just because it was your 2nd time up. Lots of cases get facts of the case proven and dismissed, which isnt even applying the probation act and depending the the person they could get that applied two or three times depending on the severity of the charge, even if they dont get it dismissed and facts of the case proven, they will get the probation act, which again isnt even a slap on the wrist and which criminals laugh about as there 3 strikes, again if you were a practicing solicitor you would know this as well.

As for previous convictions. They can be entered into court if the accused/defendant mentions them first, I assume in your little story you mistook the 'stupid' question from the prosecutor as just that but do you not think they were trying to get the person to actually volunteer the information themself and hence taint there own case without the prosecutor actually telling the court about the previous convictions? Also a case wouldnt be thrown out over that as the details of the previous convictions were not given and also how does a traffic conviction relate in anyway to a public order charge and how would it help the prosecutor in anyway really? Sounds dodgy to me anyway.

Ye I agree, solicitors would tell you to plead guilty if its a simply public intoxication summons. Thats why your story doesnt hold up. The lads decided to fight it? That makes no sense at all. You actually contradict your story by saying that, at least it looks like that to me. Also for 1st time offence like something as simple as that, it wouldnt even be the probation act. It would be facts of the case proven, case dismissed. Even softer. That is quite scot free, absolutely 0 ramifications in the future and if you can see anyway, please tell them to me.

As for gardai procedural rules and lee-way granted to gardai. Thats all gone. All of it. As for me being a gard. You can think what you like but I suppose it is easier for you to believe that from your position. I have an interest in laws and am quite well informed when it comes to matters of law both of tort and criminal. It's handy to know some gards at the same time to and handy to know some solicitors, barristers and judges also. I am not disputting the errors of the past but thats what people tend to dwell on, the past. I can easily say that the Gardai are one of, if not the most scrutinised police forces in europe. You should look at the spanish police even, they will pull you from your car window and cable tie you with your hands behind your back if you fail to stop for there cars. Now Im not picking on the spaniards before you go on, Im just citing a well known example, it was around the time of the madrid bombs. Do you think that kind of behaviour would stand over here? no way, many people would be sacked I'd say. There have been bomb scares here too, so no need to point out the anixety the police over there must have been going through, its an old feeling to the police here.

I agree with the new Garda Ombusman. It was a flawed system before, going into a garda station to complain about a garda........ stupid really. Only time will tell how well this system works or is it just a glorified witch hunting tool for the politicians and the media.

Nobody and least of all me have said that there are no problems in the Gardai and revisions arent needed. I'd love to see where you get that from any of my posts. Im simply on about all these non-sense stories an attitudes that tend to fly around, magnified by some peoples absolute distain for authority and the chance to help swell stories and feelings on issuses such as this. I'm not saying your a prejudiced person but you tend to read to narrowly and not look at all the angles. That is partly because of the text based way your reading it as well thou but that cant really be helped.

jimi_t wrote:

When people start talking about issues like this, others are quick to jump in with some snide "Oh well then Mr.Smartypants, tell us how" comment. I don't pretend for a second to have the answers.

If some random punter like myself could isolate the root cause(s) just like that, there wouldn't be a problem. There's no quick-solve solution. I just believe that throwing some money towards subsidised housing as a token gesture, and then going down and smacking a few heads together when things get out of hand makes the problem worse rather than better. Anyone who has given their time to try and make a difference would agree with me. I'm no idealist, I just can't see the harm in trying.



It's this kind of attitude that's the real problem. We can't do anything so just give up? Why not try volunteering yourself - god knows that plenty of organisations could do with the help. Try helping out with a homework club or a youth club or similar. It might just open your eyes

You go on about how others are quick to jump in with smarty pants comments. Thats exactly how I see your comments. You jump in by saying how we need to get to the base of the problem instead of doing X and Y etc but then do absolutely nothing to back it up and then turn around and tell me Im doing that? Pot calling Kettle. You cant just say, well somebody needs to think of an answer for 'this' and 'that' problem insteading of doing it wrong like "this" etc. As little sense as you got from reading that is as much as I got from what you said in your 1st post. of course some random punter isnt going to have a quick-solve solution, thats exactly my point to you. Its easy to criticise but just because you can criticise doesnt mean you should.

I never said there is no point in trying, you can point that part out to me by the way. Im all for trying. I do volunteer in youth groups already. Sometimes go on trips down the country and taking the kids out of the areas they are affected 'by' and give them a chance to experience something different. So dont dare say I dont even try or do anything, your not in a position to be telling me what I should be doing either really. Perhaps you may open your eyes and realise that nothing is black and white and quite often its grey.

You are 100% wrong about the Gardai not having to tell you your rights. They are absolutely responsible and completely liable to inform you of your rights and to make sure you understand them also. Thats a fact. Please do check with any civil rights movements, garda stations, department of justice. You should really know this as a solicitor man, Im guessing your a student solicitor so.

Aha,

This is an excellent resource.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/arrests

You have to be told you have the right to a solicitor but that's all they are oblidged to tell you about your rights. A quick google for anyone out there will confirm that is very rare for gardai to tell your your rights and there is no statutory obligation to do so. You sir are watching too many US television shows. I didn't see anything there about questioning after 12. There are obligations as regards Provision of toilets, check up every 30 mins etc. Sure have a read and get back to me.

No I'm qualified about 4 years. if I was a student this stuff would be fresher in my head. Conor Hanley "Criminal Law" was the text back in my day. If you're interested go look that up. You have a naive view of solicitors if you think they're all tucked away in court. I work in a big 4 firm in town.

I have an interest in laws and am quite well informed when it comes to matters of law both of tort and criminal. It's handy to know some gards at the same time to and handy to know some solicitors, barristers and judges also

hmmmm. To be honest you sound like a career criminal. That's the only person I know that fits the bill here.

Look, I'm not going into details of the case over and over. It happened. If you don't believe it fine. I'm not here to convince every brick head who opens up a rule book or does a google search and thinks that life must conform to it.

Gardai do not follow procedure from time to time.
Hell even the judge threw the case out of tenious grounds but the whole court-room knew the guard was lying. I was there and people were laughing at her.
In relation to the barrister in the District court

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/criminal-law/criminal-trial/legal_representation_in_criminal_cases

If you have been charged with a summary offence, you may be represented by a solicitor and/or a barrister. Criminal legal aid is not generally available at the District Court

The reason a barrister was brought in was because the Guards had him up on a trumped up charge a short while before and they were going fighting the second trumped up charge. You ahve to make a stand sometime. He didn't HAVE to do it.

Im guessing you were either one of the people arrested or just love lying so not to appear wrong, Im not sure.

I think we're both guilty of this. Unfortunately you're not in possession of the facts, only a healthy sense of skepticism.

No, I wasn't arrested. One person was. Please read previous posts. Not very sherlock holmes there.

And that's it from me. You're opinions on the truth of my account, whilst no doubt valid to hold, are wrong. whether you wish to believe that or not is irrelevent.

I'm guessing

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0098.html#zza24y1961s98

It was defo a Road Traffic Offence because I looked at the summons. This is about 5 years ago now.

In relation to the exact provisions of cautioning, I'm corporate. and my 6 months in litigation was nearly 4 years ago now so I'm not up to speed on every point but I do remember from my Criminal law that the guards do not have to explain your rights when detaining you unless expressly asked. You're entitled to remain silent and counsell but not to have your rights explained when detained.