Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Garda Cleared of Assault on a Technicality - Question

2

Comments

  • #32
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Cushtac,

    the crux of my question is this - can a Garda now not be prosecuted without the say so of the GSOC?

    If so, why can a banker be prosecuted without the say so of the Financial Regulator or Financial Ombudsman, or a pilot the aviation authority, a doctor the Medical Council, a solicitor the Law Society etc? You see where I am going with this?
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    So if I boot fcuk out of someone on Grafton St tonight in full view of 100 witnesses and assorted CCTV systems and hang around, I cannot be arrested if the Gardai did not observe the incident?
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    He drew blood.....

    Be honest, if this guy worked on a building site, he would have been down the cells.


    You have a seriously distorted view and understanding of Irish law and the various sections within it. You need to sit down and first understand the various types of law and the difference between the Gardai, GSOC and various other agencies.

    Once your understanding of our justice system is up to scratch you can read stories in a paper and make an informed opinion about the situation instead of using the taboids opinion to try and argue with those that do actually know the law and above all, understand it because all you have done so far is make yourself appear foolish and uneducated.


  • #33
    Blazer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,512 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    I think because it's the first ombudsman case to go to trial and the muppets couldn't even get it right.
    I think people are sick of hearing about scum (and this guard is one) getting off scot free on technicalities because the Guards or the DPP screwed up.
    I was sickened to see that paedophile judge get off scot free on child porn charges because the fcuking idiots didn't realise how long a warrant lasts for despite most of them being in the job for years.
    And it's the same on a weekly basis.
    I know a lot of scumbags get convicted and we only ever heard about the ones that get away but it still pisses people off.


  • #34
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    Mathew Reilly wrote: »
    I think because it's the first ombudsman case to go to trial and the muppets couldn't even get it right.
    I think people are sick of hearing about scum (and this guard is one) getting off scot free on technicalities because the Guards or the DPP screwed up.
    I was sickened to see that paedophile judge get off scot free on child porn charges because the fcuking idiots didn't realise how long a warrant lasts for despite most of them being in the job for years.And it's the same on a weekly basis.
    I know a lot of scumbags get convicted and we only ever heard about the ones that get away but it still pisses people off.

    You do realise that it was this very case that decided how long the bloody warrant lasts for dont you? Its called case law and on this occasion the judge made a first time decision concerning warrants. Until this case warrants had been served and accepted in law on dozens of occasions.

    I will tell you the same as I just told the OP. Learn and understand a subject before debating it.


  • #35
    cushtac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    Mathew Reilly wrote: »
    I was sickened to see that paedophile judge get off scot free on child porn charges because the fcuking idiots didn't realise how long a warrant lasts for despite most of them being in the job for years.

    The warrant never specified a time, merely the number of days it was valid for. In previous cases the time of the issuing of the warrant had never been an issue, yet in this case (one involving a judge) a judge rules that all of a sudden it was. Draw your own conclusions.


  • #36
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    Eru wrote: »
    Once your understanding of our justice system is up to scratch you can read stories in a paper and make an informed opinion about the situation instead of using the taboids opinion to try and argue with those that do actually know the law and above all, understand it because all you have done so far is make yourself appear foolish and uneducated.
    Geez, talk about arrogance. All he was doing was asking those in the know for some information.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Geez, talk about arrogance. All he was doing was asking those in the know for some information.

    And if you believe thats all he was 'trying to do' then I have a bridge for sale ;)


  • #38
    cushtac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Geez, talk about arrogance. All he was doing was asking those in the know for some information.

    Then ignoring what he was told & persisting with erroneous ideas.


  • #39
    Blazer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,512 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    cushtac wrote: »
    The warrant never specified a time, merely the number of days it was valid for. In previous cases the time of the issuing of the warrant had never been an issue, yet in this case (one involving a judge) a judge rules that all of a sudden it was. Draw your own conclusions.

    Thanks Cushtac...a much more politer response than Eru.
    My betting is he's in it for a longer time than you.


  • #40
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Eru wrote: »
    You have a seriously distorted view and understanding of Irish law and the various sections within it. You need to sit down and first understand the various types of law and the difference between the Gardai, GSOC and various other agencies.

    Once your understanding of our justice system is up to scratch you can read stories in a paper and make an informed opinion about the situation instead of using the taboids opinion to try and argue with those that do actually know the law and above all, understand it because all you have done so far is make yourself appear foolish and uneducated.

    I dont think that's fair. The OP raised objective and reasonable Q's and I didnt get any hint of 'Garda-bashing' off them. It's probably the wrong forum to ask them in but nevertheless I dont think these comments are helpful.


  • #41
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Eru wrote: »
    You do realise that it was this very case that decided how long the bloody warrant lasts for dont you? Its called case law and on this occasion the judge made a first time decision concerning warrants. Until this case warrants had been served and accepted in law on dozens of occasions.

    I will tell you the same as I just told the OP. Learn and understand a subject before debating it.

    The Judge Curtin saga? I'm not aware of any legal precedent made regarding the execution of search warrants. What Judge/Court are you referring to and what new ground did the decision set?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    cushtac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    McCrack wrote: »
    The OP raised objective and reasonable Q's and I didnt get any hint of 'Garda-bashing' off them.

    He implied that the Gardaí hadn't arrested the suspect because he was a colleague, which isn't true and isn't fair.


  • #43
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    McCrack wrote: »
    The Judge Curtin saga? I'm not aware of any legal precedent made regarding the execution of search warrants. What Judge/Court are you referring to and what new ground did the decision set?

    Already answered by another poster.

    The whole thread was bashing supposed inaction or incompetance by Gardai. I like numerous others have pointed out why those views are incorrect. If your going to ask a question, ask it and I will answer fairly but the OP and the poster above have made statements suggesting incorrect action on the part of Gardai where there is no incorrect action. If you dont see that, well how much are you offering for my bridge?


  • #44
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    cushtac wrote: »
    He implied that the Gardaí hadn't arrested the suspect because he was a colleague, which isn't true and isn't fair.

    I'm referring to the poster who opened this thread (OhNoYouDidn't). I cant see anything by that poster to suggest garda-bashing nor that the Garda didnt arrest a colleague because he was a member. If you can please enlighten me.

    Again I reiterate that certain replies to the OP have been unhelpful to say the least than then again can most posters on the forum be objective on a matter like this? Again the wrong forum to post this question.


  • #45
    cushtac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    McCrack wrote: »
    I'm referring to the poster who opened this thread (OhNoYouDidn't). I cant see anything by that poster to suggest garda-bashing nor that the Garda didnt arrest a colleague because he was a member. If you can please enlighten me.

    See post #28


  • #46
    TheNog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    McCrack wrote: »
    Again I reiterate that certain replies to the OP have been unhelpful to say the least

    I agree. People tone down your posts please. Absolutely no need to get on high horses.

    than then again can most posters on the forum be objective on a matter like this?

    Why do you ask that question?

    I think most if not all can be objective. After all we deal with thousands of assault victims each year and see the end result on the victims. Also I do not respect any person committing an assault on another, Garda or not. This fella has done alot of damage to the organisation as a whole. Something we will have to deal with for some time.
    Again the wrong forum to post this question.

    Why is the wrong forum?

    The OP came here to get information from people in the know and here or the Legal Discussion is where the correct information can be got. Not in After Hours or the Galway forum where threads on this case are turning into all Guards are bastards and in cohoots with the Ombi man and the DPP.


  • #47
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Eru wrote: »
    Already answered by another poster.

    The whole thread was bashing supposed inaction or incompetance by Gardai. I like numerous others have pointed out why those views are incorrect. If your going to ask a question, ask it and I will answer fairly but the OP and the poster above have made statements suggesting incorrect action on the part of Gardai where there is no incorrect action. If you dont see that, well how much are you offering for my bridge?

    Youre avoiding my question to you re the warrants and the Curtin precedent you say was made. No other poster on this thread has addressed that and answered it like you claim.

    In my opinion the thread was not started by the OP with any agenda except educated questioning of the GSOC and it's role in criminal prosecution of members and why a matter concerning an off-duty member needs to be referred to them first and not the DPP and the resultant collapse of the trial...legitimate Q's.

    You posts have been too defensive and unhelpful.


  • #48
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    cushtac wrote: »
    See post #28

    Yes ie the trial would not of collapsed and if convicted there would of been a chance he would of been imprisoned ie "in the cells"

    Thats not Garda bashing like you and some others seem to suggest the OP motives are.


  • #49
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    I'm not sure if the OP has had a satisfactory answer or not, but in any event when there is an obudsman prosecution the time limit for serving a summons is 12 months instead of 6 months. The summons in this case was obviously issued somewhere between 6 and 12 months after the alleged offence.

    Just to assure the OP, the technicality is used far more often to thwart gardai than it is to defend them (as this is a garda forum I am not going to discuss the technicality, as it's far too much fun).


  • #50
    cushtac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    McCrack wrote: »
    Yes ie the trial would not of collapsed and if convicted there would of been a chance he would of been imprisoned ie "in the cells"

    Thats not Garda bashing like you and some others seem to suggest the OP motives are.

    I don't think that's what he meant at all. He had previously been talking about how the Gardaí dealt with the incident, asking why the suspect wasn't dealt with like anyone else. When this was pointed out to him he suggested that if he had been a builder he would have been in the cells, which commonly refers to police custody.

    Given that the matter of the collapsed trial hadn't come up in about 10 posts, and nearly every post in between had been about the Gardaí, I find it hard to believe he was suddenly referring back to the court case & was talking about prison.


  • #51
    Whitewater-AGS
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 315 ✭✭Whitewater-AGS


    I think the OP's question regarding gsoc,dpp and no arrest have been answered several times at this stage, so i'm done with this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    cushtac wrote: »
    I don't think that's what he meant at all. He had previously been talking about how the Gardaí dealt with the incident, asking why the suspect wasn't dealt with like anyone else. When this was pointed out to him he suggested that if he had been a builder he would have been in the cells, which commonly refers to police custody.

    Given that the matter of the collapsed trial hadn't come up in about 10 posts, and nearly every post in between had been about the Gardaí, I find it hard to believe he was suddenly referring back to the court case & was talking about prison.

    Well I'll let the OP clarify that if they want but at this point it's a matter of interpretation and your replies and certain others are enough to satisfy me that some members cant be objective on this forum when it comes to matters concerning their colleagues which reflect badly on the organisation.

    Thats why I said it's probably the wrong forum to raise it and really and truely reading some replies here objectively you will see what I am saying.

    But look I can relate to wanting to defend your own colleagues and the bad press some put on the rest but you've got to take a stand back sometimes.


  • #53
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    McCrack wrote: »
    Youre avoiding my question to you re the warrants and the Curtin precedent you say was made. No other poster on this thread has addressed that and answered it like you claim.

    Fine, before if you got a warrant at 23.50 then day 1 of the warrant was the next day. For example, if I got one at 11.50pm tonight day 1 was alwasy concidered and accepted as being tomorrow. That being the case the Gardai in the Curtin case executed the warrant on day 7, ie on the following Friday. In this case the Judge made a judgement that the warrant started at the time of issue therefore making day 1 today. It should therefore be executed by next Thursday 11.59pm. And bang, your warrant was out of date, the evidence obtained illegally and no case. I find it strange that you were not made aware of this during training, etc as it was raised numerous times in all legal sectors (Im presuming your a Garda or in the legal profession, I dont actually know)
    McCrack wrote: »
    In my opinion the thread was not started by the OP with any agenda except educated questioning of the GSOC and it's role in criminal prosecution of members and why a matter concerning an off-duty member needs to be referred to them first and not the DPP and the resultant collapse of the trial...legitimate Q's.

    The original question was fine, it showed a lack of understanding of the legal system but as you and I agree, no harm in asking when you dont know something.

    the problem was the OP couldnt seem to grasp the asnwers being given and went on and on about how the Gardai are being treated differently and that GSOC are only an overseeing or internal discipline body. Then when the actual reality seemed to have sunk in the OP implied that the Gardai acted differently to protect a colleague when the reality is they acted correctly and in accordance with law and proceedure. Personally I give the OP more credit than that and believe that his actions and posts were made for the purpose of arguement and bashing.
    McCrack wrote: »
    You posts have been too defensive and unhelpful.

    I consider my answers to be in the same vain as the questions. If you honestly see nothing wrong with comments made then I suggest your being niave and thus, my bridge question. As for being unhelpful, etc. I see no reason to help when the OP had already recieved numerous answers, not from you I note.

    Please also note, this forum and users like myself are not online solicitors and Gardai, its a message forum for ES personel. I can post how and when I feel once I stay within the charter but please, not once did I mention the actual case or defend the offender so I would ask you to remove that suggestion as its uncalled for.


  • #54
    cushtac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    McCrack wrote: »
    Well I'll let the OP clarify that if they want but at this point it's a matter of interpretation and your replies and certain others are enough to satisfy me that some members cant be objective on this forum when it comes to matters concerning their colleagues which reflect badly on the organisation.

    Thats why I said it's probably the wrong forum to raise it and really and truely reading some replies here objectively you will see what I am saying.

    But look I can relate to wanting to defend your own colleagues and the bad press some put on the rest but you've got to take a stand back sometimes.

    I can't speak for others, but I don't think I've been anything other than objective on the original point. I've haven't said anything one way or the other about the suspected offender's alleged actions and I've answered all the OP's questions fairly & accurately.


  • #55
    TheNog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    McCrack wrote: »
    Well I'll let the OP clarify that if they want but at this point it's a matter of interpretation and your replies and certain others are enough to satisfy me that some members cant be objective on this forum when it comes to matters concerning their colleagues which reflect badly on the organisation.

    I have already spoken and agreed with you about this so move on
    Thats why I said it's probably the wrong forum to raise it and really and truely reading some replies here objectively you will see what I am saying.

    The OP, possibly through no fault of his/her own asked a question several times when it was answered each time may come across as maybe trolling. Then again to give the benefit of the doubt the OP may not be well versed in law and this could have been the reason for it.
    But look I can relate to wanting to defend your own colleagues and the bad press some put on the rest

    I have seen you contribute greatly on the Legal Discussion and respect your views and helpfullness there but if you ever come on here again insinuating we are defending a colleague who beat a woman, I will have not think twice about giving you a weeks ban.

    Understood?

    I will leave this thread open for now in case someone has a valid question to ask but if anyone posts anything aggressive or even seem like they are trolling I will deal with it harshly.


  • #56
    eroo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,084 ✭✭✭eroo


    TheNog wrote: »

    I have seen you contribute greatly on the Legal Discussion and respect your views and helpfullness there but if you ever come on here again insinuating we are defending a colleague who beat a woman, I will have not think twice about giving you a weeks ban.

    Understood?

    I will leave this thread open for now in case someone has a valid question to ask but if anyone posts anything aggressive or even seem like they are trolling I will deal with it harshly.

    Well said.


  • #57
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    TheNog wrote: »
    I have already spoken and agreed with you about this so move on



    The OP, possibly through no fault of his/her own asked a question several times when it was answered each time may come across as maybe trolling. Then again to give the benefit of the doubt the OP may not be well versed in law and this could have been the reason for it.



    I have seen you contribute greatly on the Legal Discussion and respect your views and helpfullness there but if you ever come on here again insinuating we are defending a colleague who beat a woman, I will have not think twice about giving you a weeks ban.

    Understood?

    I will leave this thread open for now in case someone has a valid question to ask but if anyone posts anything aggressive or even seem like they are trolling I will deal with it harshly.

    Be careful the choice of words you use on a public forum, the defendant was not convicted.

    Now my choice of the word colleague was wrong, I should of used the word organisation instead. The statement you took issue with was not directed at you or member posters or but at cushtac yet you felt compelled to stick your oar in.

    You also used the word 'we' which suggests to me that you have closed ranks in this 'us V them' mentality that has prevailed on this thread and indeed forum. I'm genuninely surprised at that because I've found your posts to be the more level-headed and fairer posts out of the regular member posters but your attitude regarding this matter and certain others attitudes just re-inforce my opinions previously stated.

    It's a public forum and you must realise and to be fair I think you do that non-members or people not involved in the courts/criminal justice system who post here do have often mis-conceived notions and an ignorance but allowances need to be made for that and not the sharp replies boardering on abuse to legitimate Q's I've seen posted here and elsewhere by certain individuals, and not to mention the back-slapping and brown-nosing too.

    Freddie Morris got it damn right in his reports.

    I stand over my previous posts.


  • #58
    metman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭metman


    McCrack your posts bore me. You have no interest in the ES other than to try antagonise. You're not fooling anyone on here my pedigree chum.


  • #59
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    metman wrote: »
    McCrack your posts bore me. You have no interest in the ES other than to try antagonise. You're not fooling anyone on here my pedigree chum.

    Nah Met,

    I can see where he is coming from & is spot on with his comments, in my opinion.
    McCrack wrote: »
    It's a public forum and you must realise and to be fair I think you do that non-members or people not involved in the courts/criminal justice system who post here do have often mis-conceived notions and an ignorance but allowances need to be made for that and not the sharp replies boardering on abuse to legitimate Q's I've seen posted here and elsewhere by certain individuals, and not to mention the back-slapping and brown-nosing too.

    Some non members have come in here in the past and have been shockingly treated whilst attempting to ask a simple question.

    I put it down to lack of experience of some of the apparent Gardai that post in here. Some posters are good to explain and respond and are balanced & fair in their comments, like yourself. But the majority of the regular posters in this forum come across as immature, rude & blinkered, that is why I rarely visit this forum anymore, the joke thread is amusing.


  • #60
    RMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭RMD


    Disgraceful that some scumbag in uniform is practically allowed walk from charges while if it was a common citizen we'd be slapped in cuffs and thrown in a garda car very quickly.

    If the common citizen did this, slapped some girl about and there was a victims statement, a key witness statement and physical evidence of assault (the cut lip) charges would most likely be pressed very quickly.

    Don't see any reasoning why the Gardai should be allowed to halt the standard investigation when he's comitted the crime off-duty, off-duty he is a common citizen, not a member of the Gardai on patrol.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    metman wrote: »
    McCrack your posts bore me. You have no interest in the ES other than to try antagonise. You're not fooling anyone on here my pedigree chum.

    Your accusations are wrong, very wrong.

    Can you offer any constructive input yourself to the subject matter of this thread instead of trying to attack anyone who dares disagree with the bluebottle minds?

    Everything anyone posts on boards in any forum is open to testing, criticism, disagreement etc. remember that.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement