Thread watch

metman wrote: »

:rolleyes: well seeing as how you're already doing a grand job misquoting me and jumping to your own conclusions, I'll leave you to answer your own loaded question.

Where did I misquote you? You said the DPP don't know anything about operational procedure and only know what's set by statute or texts.

I pointed out that the parameters of operational procedure are set by such laws. I also pointed out that those procedures are assessed practically every day of the week by the same people you said didn't know anything about them.

You're a bit defensive. Relax.

metman wrote: »

The system you're trying and failing to describe is the criminal justice system wherein evidence is tested in open court by lawyers for both prosecution and defence. Indeed police methods and tactics will sometimes be challenged by defence lawyers. The DPP do not assess police conduct in court, nor do the defence. Ultimately its the bench that makes any assessment known as a 'judgment'.

You are splitting hairs. Both sides make an assessment - it is called putting forward a case. The Court then makes a decision (a 'judgment') based on what is pleaded before it.

And its not the offences that are on trial, but rather the suspect(s) or 'defendant(s)'.

A 'trial of offences' is another term for a criminal trial. You'll find the term in any english criminal law book and it is the term used in Bunreacht na hÉireann. It is used throughout the common law world. Please don't correct me on things that you clearly don't understand yourself.

Worldismyidea wrote: »

A 'trial of offences' is another term for a criminal trial. You'll find the term in any english criminal law book and it is the term used in Bunreacht na hÉireann. It is used throughout the common law world. Please don't correct me on things that you clearly don't understand yourself.

You're very defensive. Relax

metman wrote: »

Its not a Prosecutors job to assess police conduct, and as I've said, they're not qualified to adjudicate. This is why we have an Ombudsman's Office that, surprisingly, consists mostly of ex-police who are trained and experienced investigators. If lawyers knew the police's job better than the police, why is this office not staffed with lawyers?

It is staffed with lawyers. The 3 commissioners on the GSOC are: a High Court judge, a civil servant, and a journalist. Of the 9 members of the Complaints board, 5 are lawyers. I believe one of the Assistant Commissioners of An Garda Síochána sits on the Board also.

TheNog wrote:

This is your post, your words which clearly imply that all complaints against Gardai are valid.

Again your words.

So "some" means "all", now?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But prosecutors regularly assess police conduct outside of court when, for example, advising on whether a case is fit to be prosecuted or not.

No they dont, they assess the evidence that a crime has been commited and if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute someone. The DPP do not know how a case was investigated nor do they pass comment on Garda actions. Obviously if the Gardai acted outside the law this would impact on the evidence as it would be deemed inadmissaible.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On the contrary, they know a lot about actual police work. But in any event, when it comes to prosecuting crimes there is no police work other than that which is legally viable. The stuff that bent cops do is not police work, it's corruption. Granted, prosecutors know very little about, for example, rotas and patrolls etc, but they know exactly how a garda should act when dealing with the investigation of offences and the gathering of evidence for prosecutions. So to say that they know very little about police work suggests that there is a lot of police work that is illegal and which is hidden from the prosecutors (because they don't really know the law, do they sarge?)

Wow, that really is a lot of horse **** too be honest. Policework is not simple the law, otherwise Gardai wouldnt train as police officers they would train as solicitors and could become either. No police force in the world has such a system and for good reason.

Let me explain this too you, Solicitors have no knowledge, training or experience in taking fingerprints, examining a crime scene, conducting a crime investigation, interviewing suspects, taking statements, obtaining information, conducting searches, etc.

They dont know criminals or their MO's. They know nothing of actual police work, watching people and obtaining reasonable suspicion based on observation. Evaluating a scene or a report. They dont know anything outside of the law and files. Why? Because thats their jobs. All they know about police work is the law that governs what the Gardai can and cannot do, not how to do with. I know a Surgeon can cut me open and perform heart surgery but Im buggered if I know anything about it.

Its like comparing a doctor to a fireman, they both have medical training and deal with sick and injured people but a doctor is not a fireman. Or how about comparing police to soldiers? they are both trained and somtimes carry guns while occasionally dealing with violent people that want to hurt them. A chef and a grocer, they both deal with food. The list goes on, having something in common doesnt mean you know the complete job.

I would however agree that their are some civilians that are qualified to judge the Gardai, they are called the Garda ombudsman. People coming onto boards and moaning, allow me to ask them a question, what did the ombudsman think about their story? Very little and thats why they post one sided stories.

Now, moving on or back as it may be. the Garda ombudsman must invesitagte a complaint as long as;

It is made by a person who is entitled to complain
The alleged behaviour is considered as misbehaviour
The complaint is made within the required timeframe
The complaint is not false or misleading

Now, I will have to explain this too you. If you say a Garda gave you a ticket for no reason then its admissable and is investigated. The complaint file when finished if forwarded and a decision is made. The Ombudsman cannot simple dismiss a complaint as being without merit BEFORE CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION. They are looking for that power, the ability to simple disregard a complaint because on the face of it it has no merit.

Its similar to a Garda file, just because a complaint is investigated and a file sent for a decision doesnt mean the complaint was valid or true.

A picture paints a thousand words:

Police


Lawyer

metman wrote: »

As you've previously indicated your own sentiment where the police are concerned I doubt anything that's said on here will be taken at face value. However....

Yes there are some people who are legally qualified on the Commission. However, I'll say this again, GSOC is not staffed with lawyers; its staff consist primarily of SIOs and IOs, who have all gained the required level of investigative experience through prior service in law-enforcement environments around the globe.

Legal qualifications are useful in law enforcement, I have some myself, however they are no substitute for time in and operational experience.

This thread, like a struggling solicitor....is losing its appeal :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

You, yourself, appear to have a history of getting very sensitive if you think that someone is leveling even the slightest criticism at the police. I haven't made any such charges against anybody but, true to form, you have proceeded to make a number of childish remarks in a rather desperate effort to score points.

No one has said that they can, or want to, do your job. However, issue was taken with the rather silly assertion that 'Only the police can make valid statements about police conduct'. It's reminiscent of every clichéd Vietnam Vet: 'You don't know 'cos you weren't there, man!' It is nonsense. There are plenty of people able to make valid criticisms and to suggest places where the force can change.

Another poster gave examples of 'forming a reasonable suspicion' and 'interviewing suspects' as being things that non-police officers can't understand. Both of those areas, and there are more, have been the subject of extensive case law. With regards to questioning, the Judge's Rules are a prime example of suggesting a form of conduct to the police. It would be nonsense to suggest that police conduct in the gathering of evidence is not informed by the criminal law - why are they teaching legal studies in Templemore, then?

Outside the legal sphere, groups, such as the rape crisis network, have made a number of valid criticisms and suggestions about how the police could better investigate crimes involving sexual violence. There are plenty of groups in society who are able to assess and critique police conduct. There are even a few lawyers who know a thing or two.

This thread didn't become tiresome: it was tiresome from the start. For god's sake, it's a thread that is set up to 'keep an eye out' for potential critics. How paranoid is that?!

Worldismyidea wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You, yourself, appear to have a history of getting very sensitive if you think that someone is leveling even the slightest criticism at the police. I haven't made any such charges against anybody but, true to form, you have proceeded to make a number of childish remarks in a rather desperate effort to score points.

No one has said that they can, or want to, do your job. However, issue was taken with the rather silly assertion that 'Only the police can make valid statements about police conduct'. It's reminiscent of every clichéd Vietnam Vet: 'You don't know 'cos you weren't there, man!' It is nonsense. There are plenty of people able to make valid criticisms and to suggest places where the force can change.

Another poster gave examples of 'forming a reasonable suspicion' and 'interviewing suspects' as being things that non-police officers can't understand. Both of those areas, and there are more, have been the subject of extensive case law. With regards to questioning, the Judge's Rules are a prime example of suggesting a form of conduct to the police. It would be nonsense to suggest that police conduct in the gathering of evidence is not informed by the criminal law - why are they teaching legal studies in Templemore, then?

Outside the legal sphere, groups, such as the rape crisis network, have made a number of valid criticisms and suggestions about how the police could better investigate crimes involving sexual violence. There are plenty of groups in society who are able to assess and critique police conduct. There are even a few lawyers who know a thing or two.

This thread didn't become tiresome: it was tiresome from the start. For god's sake, it's a thread that is set up to 'keep an eye out' for potential critics. How paranoid is that?!

Oh sweet Jesus you just dont get it do you? the law states what you can do not HOW TO ACTUALLY DO IT.

I dont know how else to explain this but I will try once more; the law states you can use self defence, that doesn't that make you a black belt now does it? You can LEGALLY change your name to Bruce Lee, the law allows this but your still not a ****ing martial arts expert!

Judges rules doesnt make any real mention of interviews or crime investigation, mentions being cautioned about 6 times, thats about it. Do you actually know the Judges rules?

And when did the rape crisis centre make recommendations about how the Gardai should collect evidence and create a case? They dont, they make suggestions and how to deal with victims in a humane and considerate manner. Again you mix up the data you rely on just like you did with GSOC.

The problem here is you are either a qualified solicitor or more probable a barrack room lawyer who thinks he can therefore tell the police how to operate based on legal knowledge.

What we are trying to explain to you is that thats the same as me knowing a bit of biology and telling a surgeon how to operate or a mechanic how to fix my car because I know how to drive. You only have one piece of the jigsaw.

Gardai on the other hand would not in general have the same level of legal knowledge as a solicitor, for the simple reason that we have what we need for our job which is covered in criminal law only. A solicitor will deal with areas of the law not encountered by Gardai and vice versa Gardai deal with areas not encountered by solicitors.

Worldismyidea wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You, yourself, appear to have a history of getting very sensitive if you think that someone is leveling even the slightest criticism at the police. I haven't made any such charges against anybody but, true to form, you have proceeded to make a number of childish remarks in a rather desperate effort to score points.

Maybe you should take your own legal advice on the matter:

Worldismyidea wrote: »

Just be polite. It's easier. Give them your name and address (it's an offence to refuse). And then say nothing else. That'll make them really angry but they won't be able to do anything about it.

Perhaps if you refrain from commenting, maybe we'll all get very angry but will be unable to do anything about it. Foiled again.

You talk about being childish, yet your above post and those on this thread, in my submission, could not mistaken as anything else and the hint of ever present arrogance, it belies a lack of experience. Which reminds me, what's the difference between God and a Solicitor? God doesn't think he's a Solicitor