The steam off your ...

sam34 · 02-12-2008 04:47PM

deadwood wrote: »

Speak for yourself.;)

well, i'm female, so...
maybe i'm hanging around with the wrong kind of guys

TheNog · 02-12-2008 04:59PM

sam34 wrote: »

there's gonna be around 3 feet betwen the average guys nose and where he's peeing from....

deadwood wrote: »

Speak for yourself.;)

sam34 wrote: »

well, i'm female, so.../

haha Deadwood you just got owned!!!

Johnny Utah wrote: »

HaHaHa.... Assault under section 2:

"In subsection (1)(a), 'force' includes—

( a ) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

( b ) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form."

:D:D:D.......:eek::eek:::eek::eek:

I would travel a great distance just to see a guard try to make that one stick

:D

metman · 02-12-2008 05:02PM

TheNog wrote: »

haha Deadwood you just got owned!!!

Mrs Deadwood won't like that

deadwood · 02-12-2008 11:36PM

sam34 wrote: »

.... there's gonna be around 3 feet betwen the average guys nose and where he's peeing from....

Oops. Sorry sam34, I guess there's about 3 inches between where i'm peeing from and where i'm talking through!

eroo · 02-12-2008 11:40PM

deadwood wrote: »

Oops. Sorry sam34, I guess there's about 3 inches between where i'm peeing from and where i'm talking through!

Too late Deadwood, too late!!:P:D

deadwood · 02-12-2008 11:42PM

eroo wrote: »

Too late Deadwood, too late!!:P:D

Damned work interfering with my boards time.

Esel · 03-12-2008 02:49AM

deadwood wrote: »

Oops. Sorry sam34, I guess there's about 3 inches between where i'm peeing from and where i'm talking through!

Yeah, frosty weather does that!

TheNog · 03-12-2008 07:23AM

deadwood wrote: »

Oops. Sorry sam34, I guess there's about 3 inches between where i'm peeing from and where i'm talking through!

Ah you don't talk through your ass that much. :pac:

or

Say hello to Artist formerly known as Prince

*had to be said*

timmywex · 17-12-2008 06:48PM

Man freed two days after getting two-year sentence
DRUGS CONVICTION LAST 18 MONTHS OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED

JUST TWO DAYS after being sentenced to two years on a drugs related charge a Wexford town defendant was released from Wheatfield Prison.

Sean Malone, of 72 (a) North Main Street, Wexford, had the last 18 months of his sentence suspended by Judge Alice Doyle at Wexford Circuit Court, on the condition that he be of good behaviour for three years on his release.

Malone, had been charged with having cannabis, with a street value of €8,750 for sale or supply at his home on June 14, 2007. The defendant also admitted having possession of two stun guns, contrary to the Firearms Act, in his car at Charlotte Street, Wexford, on the same date.

The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges against him when he appeared before Wexford Circuit Court on Wednesday, November 12.

Judge Doyle sentenced the defendant to two years prison in Wheatfield Prison, with the final 18 months suspended, on the condition that he give an undertaking to be of good behaviour for three years after his release.

The defendant was brought to Wheatfield Prison after the court on November 12 but was released on Friday, November 14.

Malone signed the warrant for release in the presence of the Prison Governor prior to his release. It's also understood that no appeal had been lodged against the sentence.

A spokesperson for Wheatfield Prison said they were not in a position to release any information.

Prosecuting Garda Brian Cummins told the Circuit Court that he searched the defendant's car at Charlotte Street on the date in question and found two stun guns in a bag. The stun guns are classified as a fire arm and 'could inflict a stun'.

The Garda later searched the defendant's home and found a plastic bag which contained five blocks of cannabis resin, which weighed 1,239 grammes and had a street value of €8,750. The defendant had purchased the drugs in Waterford and paid €1,500 for it. He said he planned on splitting the drugs with 'two or three friends'.

The defendant, who is unemployed with an alchohol and drugs addiction, has 12 previous convictions.

deadwood · 17-12-2008 07:58PM

timmywex wrote: »

Man freed two days after getting two-year sentence
DRUGS CONVICTION LAST 18 MONTHS OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED

What's this got to do with innuendo and immature comments about wee and rudies?

Our man in Havana · 17-12-2008 11:47PM

I think if Irish barristers and solictors went to the UK they would have a field day tearing the law apart.

I see Pat and Carl had someone blow 210 one night! :eek:

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 17-12-2008 11:55PM

My take on it is that the 20 minute grace period is to allow for the clearance of any alcohol from the mouth and throat of someone being tested.

If they gargled Listerine and took a test, it would come up positive, despite the fact that they may have zero blood alcohol.

/edit: I'm almost 100% sure that no alcohol will leave your body in the form of urine however. It all gets broken down.

Our man in Havana · 18-12-2008 12:08AM

You are 100% correct.

Alcohol is oxidised to acetaldehyde in the liver. It is the acetaldehyde that ends up in the blood and is excreted in the urine.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/642alcoholmet.html

metman · 18-12-2008 12:12AM

Bond-007 wrote: »

I think if Irish barristers and solictors went to the UK they would have a field day tearing the law apart.

I see Pat and Carl had someone blow 210 one night! :eek:

I think the law here has been sufficiently tested in every conceivable fashion so as to be fairly bullet proof. We've more than enough barristers and solicitors here trying to make ends meat as is.

Our man in Havana · 18-12-2008 12:23AM

Of course the UK is heaving at the amount of barristers and solicitors. I just didn't think they were as ruthless as their Irish colleagues.

metman · 18-12-2008 12:28AM

Bond-007 wrote: »

Of course the UK is heaving at the amount of barristers and solicitors. I just didn't think they were as ruthless as their Irish colleagues.

Now you are taking the p*ss

Eru · 19-12-2008 03:28AM

The UK just doesnt fall for the same amount of defence bull**** as our system does.

I asked someone about this and they were of the opinion that if he was horrendously over the limit the fumes could have a slight effect but would not effect the machines reading.

johnnyskeleton · 19-12-2008 08:18PM

The reason for the 20 minute observation period is that it is part of the operational manual for the intoxiliser. The law comes from DPP v Finn, not from a statutory provision. The steam of the piss part is a bit ridiculous though.

TheNog wrote: »

It demonstrates that our drink driving laws are more contested than murder.

The reason drink driving (and murder) cases are so contested is that there are mandatory sentences, so there is no incentive to plead guilty. As such, people will try any point to try to prevent them being banned. If the driving ban was discretionary, there might be more pleading guilty.

TheNog wrote: »

What I find even more disturbing is that nearly half of drunk drivers are getting off the prosecutions. In our station we follow the procedures to the letter and are very good making our statements that don't give any solicitors or barristers any chance of arguing a point and creating a doubt. Why this is practiced in other stations throughout the country is a concern.

As long as gardai follow correct procedures (and of course the person is actually over the limit) there is no reason for a prosecution to fail. Your solution to the problem (i.e. have all gardai be as thorough as you) is much more sensible than any legislative change.

AlekSmart · 19-12-2008 09:18PM

Originally Posted by TheNog View Post
What I find even more disturbing is that nearly half of drunk drivers are getting off the prosecutions. In our station we follow the procedures to the letter and are very good making our statements that don't give any solicitors or barristers any chance of arguing a point and creating a doubt. Why this is practiced in other stations throughout the country is a concern.

Now THERE`s an interesting possibility....how about a yearly Station by Station breakdown of successful DD prosecutions ....?

Would sure act as a spur to those stations and members who may NOT be as thorough as The Nog is....

deadwood · 19-12-2008 11:51PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Would sure act as a spur to those stations and members who may NOT be as thorough as The Nog is....

While I can only aspire to be so thorough as the Nog:D, i'm sure even he would agree, the reality is sometimes a bit different.

Every case is different. A guard has to act on his wits, legal knowledge and memory. Occasionally, something might be forgotten on the roadside, in the station or on completing a file. If a person has been the vicim of a miscarriage of justice through some act of ommission or commission by a guard, he deserves the benefit of a reasonable doubt.

Mistakes will be made though, and we should remember that we do not have the benefit of 20:20 hindsight or volumes of road traffic act in our arse pockets on the roadside (i'm just lucky I know it all by heart). A solicitor can look at a case in the cold light of day and pore over the relevant law in the comfort of their office. Some make a career out of specialising in Road Traffic Law alone.

(For some reason, Gardai are not allowed use stencilled forms for, say, drunk drivers which would ensure that all procedures are followed rigidly and a prisoners rights are fully respected. Kind of like a custody record which starts when the offender is stopped, rather thatn when he arrives at the station.)

These occasional strike-outs for what appear to be trivial, or very minor technical, reasons are done to remove these "reasonable doubts", so eliminating the possibility for the exploitation of similar loophoes in the future.

I'm getting one of my headaches.

Eru · 20-12-2008 04:05AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The reason drink driving (and murder) cases are so contested is that there are mandatory sentences, so there is no incentive to plead guilty. As such, people will try any point to try to prevent them being banned. If the driving ban was discretionary, there might be more pleading guilty.

Under the 2006 act there is an allowance for first offenders to be fined and disqualified on the spot if they admit guilt. Sooner its enacted the better.

TheNog · 20-12-2008 07:29AM

deadwood wrote: »

While I can only aspire to be so thorough as the Nog:D, i'm sure even he would agree, the reality is sometimes a bit different.

Every case is different. A guard has to act on his wits, legal knowledge and memory. Occasionally, something might be forgotten on the roadside, in the station or on completing a file. If a person has been the vicim of a miscarriage of justice through some act of ommission or commission by a guard, he deserves the benefit of a reasonable doubt.

Mistakes will be made though, and we should remember that we do not have the benefit of 20:20 hindsight or volumes of road traffic act in our arse pockets on the roadside (i'm just lucky I know it all by heart). A solicitor can look at a case in the cold light of day and pore over the relevant law in the comfort of their office. Some make a career out of specialising in Road Traffic Law alone.

(For some reason, Gardai are not allowed use stencilled forms for, say, drunk drivers which would ensure that all procedures are followed rigidly and a prisoners rights are fully respected. Kind of like a custody record which starts when the offender is stopped, rather thatn when he arrives at the station.)

These occasional strike-outs for what appear to be trivial, or very minor technical, reasons are done to remove these "reasonable doubts", so eliminating the possibility for the exploitation of similar loophoes in the future.

I'm getting one of my headaches.

+1 to that

mistakes can be made and it is only by making mistakes do people learn. I wasn't always perfect though

Fortunately for me from the start I had a good unit behind me making sure I did everything right as well as a Sergeant who sending back my files!!!!

There usually is are differences from case to case especially with the Irish people who will try anything from being deliberately stupid to rise you or refusing to give two samples of breath (thats useless now) to spitting foreign objects into the intoxilyser (also useless). When all else fails they then threaten us with a frivilous complaint or a barrister. The foreigners are usually the best. They nearly put the cuffs on themselves if ye let them and we sometimes have a bit of craic with them in the station.

johnnyskeleton · 20-12-2008 01:20PM

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Under the 2006 act there is an allowance for first offenders to be fined and disqualified on the spot if they admit guilt. Sooner its enacted the better.

It's fixed charge, not on the spot. The disqualification is 6 months & there is no conviction. That sounds like a fairly good deal to me, but on the other hand, the reason people fight drink driving cases is to avoid the disqualification.

Eru · 22-12-2008 02:53AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's fixed charge, not on the spot. The disqualification is 6 months & there is no conviction. That sounds like a fairly good deal to me, but on the other hand, the reason people fight drink driving cases is to avoid the disqualification.

A, Same thing.

B, Thats true enough but this way your only getting 6 months which the majority of people can live with, yeah it may be a pain in the arse but its a short period of time.

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2008 10:35PM

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

A, Same thing.

It's not the same thing. For a fixed charge offence the gardai have to send out a fixed charge notice to your house. So they don't have the power to impose an on the spot fine and disqualification.

deadwood · 23-12-2008 10:57PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not the same thing. For a fixed charge offence the gardai have to send out a fixed charge notice to your house. So they don't have the power to impose an on the spot fine and disqualification.

Fixed Charge Penalty = Fine on the Spot.

Fine on the Spot is really only a figure of speech here.

jt123456 · 23-12-2008 11:11PM

The garda in this case really should be appealing this in the high court. Any sensible person can see that the fumes excuse is bull crap. Also wouldn't be too hard for a university student to do a dissertation proving that the fumes cannot get you more intoxicated.

CLADA · 23-12-2008 11:20PM

jt123456 wrote: »

The garda in this case really should be appealing this in the high court. Any sensible person can see that the fumes excuse is bull crap. Also wouldn't be too hard for a university student to do a dissertation proving that the fumes cannot get you more intoxicated.

It ain't his decision unfortunately

djtechnics1210 · 23-12-2008 11:28PM

jt123456 wrote: »

The garda in this case really should be appealing this in the high court. Any sensible person can see that the fumes excuse is bull crap. Also wouldn't be too hard for a university student to do a dissertation proving that the fumes cannot get you more intoxicated.

And unfortunately the DPP/State are usually not bothered to appeal cases even in very serious cases.

Our man in Havana · 23-12-2008 11:32PM

I would be bugging the super to appeal.

The steam off your ...

Comments