Scumbag sues Garda

Einhard · 08-10-2010 12:24AM

CorkMan wrote: »

Where can I download the tape? indymedia's link isn't working.

Dudess · 08-10-2010 01:06AM

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

every neo liberal in the country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

You're not gonna get too many "do-gooders" in favour of "a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state".

Johro · 08-10-2010 01:14AM

steve06 wrote: »

have a read of this article... http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/garda-tried-to-kill-me-car-thief-tells-court-2368625.html

I can't believe this scumbag even got to bring this case to court.

Fair enough, but did you read this?

Garda marksman loses claim for Uzi gun fall injury

By Ray Managh
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
A CRACK Garda marksman has lost a €38,000 damages claim against the state for injuries he suffered while honing his gun skills at a remote mountainous shooting range.

Detective Garda David Kelly, a member of the Special Detective Unit, injured his back when he fell on his Uzi sub-machine gun which had been slung across his shoulder, the Circuit Civil Court heard yesterday.

But Det Gda Kelly won €23,500 damages in a second claim, also heard yesterday, against taximan Peter Kavanagh, Ratoath Road, Cabra, Dublin, for injuries he suffered when Kavanagh’s taxi collided with the unmarked Garda car in which he was a passenger.

Barrister David Burke, counsel for Det Gda Kelly, told Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Matthew Deery, that in the March 2005 shooting range incident the detective had slipped on wet railway sleepers placed across a ditch on the Kilbride, Co Wicklow army range to cross a ditch.

Det Gda Kelly, 42, from Johnstown Wood, Navan, Co Meath, said that having fired the sub-machine gun he was walking from the firing line to pick up a hand gun and ammunition when he fell.

He said the force of his fall had broken the Uzi which, to his knowledge had never been fired again. At the time he had not made an issue of his fall as he had felt embarrassed and continued hand gun practice.

When cross-examined by Andrew Walker, counsel for the State Claims Agency, Det Gda Kelly said he could not recall firearms instructor Sergeant Peter Nolan warning shooters to avoid the wet sleepers and use an alternative route.

He agreed with Mr Walker following his fall he had scored a 95% target hit from 25 yards with the handgun and had finished top of the Garda group.

Det Gda Kelly also told Mr Walker he had knelt, discharged the weapon, reloaded it and had stood up, ready to fire from shoulder level, all in three seconds and after his fall.

Sgt Nolan told the court Det Garda Kelly was a top shot.

Standard firearms and area safety protocol had been complied with before shooting commenced, including specific reference by him to the potential danger of the railway sleepers.

Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Matthew Deery said weather and ground conditions were wet and he was satisfied Sgt Nolan had given an extensive briefing.

Having heard both cases in tandem to determine if his injuries overlapped, the judge said Det Gda Kelly had failed to establish negligence against the state and dismissed his claim, awarding costs to the state.

Odysseus · 08-10-2010 01:21AM

Drake66 wrote: »

I wouldn't feel too much sympathy for the little rotters: you can trace the families of today's career criminals right back to them.

Does this not indicate anything to you? I know one project that are doing some very interesting research, starting at the tenements, you had the first wave of expansion, Dolphins Barn, Ballyfermot etc, then you had the second wave places like Tallaght, Blanch etc. It is interesting that each of these areas is now Local Drug Task Force Areas. It's not my area the whole sociological aspect, my being the individual pathological side, but also factor into that the fact that the population of M/Joy is made up from people from a very selective group of post codes.

It tells me there is something there about the way these areas where created, yes you have a certain amount of families that through the generations have been involved in criminality, but there are also people who have no history of criminality in the family. It does not of course negate the person who commits the crime of their personal responsibility. There is also the point that plenty of families in these areas never engaged in criminality, but I don't think it is a factor that can be ignored.

K-9 · 08-10-2010 01:36AM

Johro wrote: »

Fair enough, but did you read this?

That has no relevance to the particular case but yes, if people are suggesting giving extra power to the Guards, something to bear in mind.

Guards are capable of breaking laws, My own father was a Guard and was ashamed of some of the stuff that members got up to here in Donegal, not just the McBrearty case.

The vast, vast majority are decent lads but giving these type of powers to the .1% will tarnish the reputation of all Guards.

man.about.town · 08-10-2010 02:19AM

this is a letter to the paper about a garda that seems to be involved with this incident but was already in court over it, its very interesting, its by a criminologist based in limerick. i thgink a criminologist would know what hes talking about

http://www.herald.ie/opinion/john-okeeffe-a-brave-garda-chases-down-two-joyriders-on-drink-or-drugs-causing-mayhem-on-our-streets-he-deserves-a-medal-he-gets-flung-in-the-dock-on-the-word-of-wrongdoers-2247577.html

TechnoPool · 08-10-2010 02:22AM

the lads always give them a good ''hidin'' after a chase happens the vast majority of times:o

K-9 · 08-10-2010 02:38AM

Dudess wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

You're not gonna get too many "do-gooders" in favour of "a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state".

I Lolled.

Einhard · 08-10-2010 02:52AM

man.about.town wrote: »

this is a letter to the paper about a garda that seems to be involved with this incident but was already in court over it, its very interesting, its by a criminologist based in limerick. i thgink a criminologist would know what hes talking about

http://www.herald.ie/opinion/john-okeeffe-a-brave-garda-chases-down-two-joyriders-on-drink-or-drugs-causing-mayhem-on-our-streets-he-deserves-a-medal-he-gets-flung-in-the-dock-on-the-word-of-wrongdoers-2247577.html

Completely different garda. Completely different incident. Is it too much to ask that peole actually read the articles they link to? I wouldn't mind except the OP also clearly didn't read the one he got so worked about.

man.about.town · 08-10-2010 02:57AM

Einhard wrote: »

Completely different garda. Completely different incident. Is it too much to ask that peole actually read the articles they link to? I wouldn't mind except the OP also clearly didn't read the one he got so worked about.

no i dont think it is, i recalled reading a similar article a few months back and googled it, seems the same incident was already in court for another garda

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/garda-charged-with-assaulting-joyriders-2243663.html

Einhard · 08-10-2010 03:08AM

man.about.town wrote: »

no i dont think it is, i recalled reading a similar article a few months back and googled it, seems the same incident was already in court for another garda

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/garda-charged-with-assaulting-joyriders-2243663.html

You're right. Apologies for jumping in there.

However, it's interesting to note that according to O'Keefe's article, Gda Hughes was acquitted because the "judge said she was not satisfied that he had been properly identified as having committed the assaults." In other words, it would appear that the fact the assaults occurred was accepted by the judge. If this is the case, then this is an extremely shoddy piece of work by O'Keefe, which given the quality of many of his other articles over the years, isn't all that surprising.

K-9 · 08-10-2010 03:41AM

Einhard wrote: »

You're right. Apologies for jumping in there.

However, it's interesting to note that according to O'Keefe's article, Gda Hughes was acquitted because the "judge said she was not satisfied that he had been properly identified as having committed the assaults." In other words, it would appear that the fact the assaults occurred was accepted by the judge. If this is the case, then this is an extremely shoddy piece of work by O'Keefe, which given the quality of many of his other articles over the years, isn't all that surprising.

That's a very literal interpretation.

It could also mean that Gda. Hughes wasn't identified as committing the "alleged" assaults.

So, the case was about assaults. Even if the assault occurred, it may not have been him. It sounds like typical judicial reasoning.

Bacically, Even if the assault occurred, there is no evidence Gda. Hughes was involved. So, there is doubt that Hughes did give the beating, even if a beating occurred. The Judge is giving the benefit of the doubt to the accusations and even then, can't see Hughes being involved.

Einhard · 08-10-2010 04:58AM

K-9 wrote: »

That's a very literal interpretation.

It could also mean that Gda. Hughes wasn't identified as committing the "alleged" assaults.

Hmmm possibly, but I think the fact that she did not dismiss the assaults outright would lead me to believe that they did indeed occur. Of course, I'm parsing a brief, second hand summary of her judgement, and further evidence could of course prove me wrong.

So, the case was about assaults. Even if the assault occurred, it may not have been him. It sounds like typical judicial reasoning.

Bacically, Even if the assault occurred, there is no evidence Gda. Hughes was involved. So, there is doubt that Hughes did give the beating, even if a beating occurred. The Judge is giving the benefit of the doubt to the accusations and even then, can't see Hughes being involved.

Eh, that's what I said. The judge didn't dismiss claims of assault, rather the fact that Hughes was identified as one of the assailants. If there were up to ten gardai involved, it's perhaps understandable that such a difficulty might arise. O'Keefe makes absolutely no attempt to address this, and instead lambasts the DPP for bringing a case which, from the comments of the judge, would appear to have been an eminently reasonable one.

dvpower · 08-10-2010 08:01AM

Drake66 wrote: »

I wouldn't feel too much sympathy for the little rotters: you can trace the families of today's career criminals right back to them.

Whose asking for sympathy?
I'd just like to have the rule of law applied.

dvpower · 08-10-2010 08:03AM

ria5000 wrote: »

I cant believe people are acting like garda Curtis DID assault that scumbag.hes telling a whole pack of lies.wait until the rest of the evidence comes out....not guilty

I'm not even going to start explaining what's wrong with this post.

sensibleken · 08-10-2010 08:16AM

Rabblerabblerabble!!!

_feedback_ · 08-10-2010 08:44AM

man.about.town wrote: »

this is a letter to the paper about a garda that seems to be involved with this incident but was already in court over it, its very interesting, its by a criminologist based in limerick. i thgink a criminologist would know what hes talking about

http://www.herald.ie/opinion/john-okeeffe-a-brave-garda-chases-down-two-joyriders-on-drink-or-drugs-causing-mayhem-on-our-streets-he-deserves-a-medal-he-gets-flung-in-the-dock-on-the-word-of-wrongdoers-2247577.html

That's a good article. Thanks for posting it. Some of it is questionable as has already been pointed out.

The outcome of that case (or this one) still doesn't change the shocking general concensus in this thread that Gardaí should be allowed to beat suspects.

Logical Fallacy · 08-10-2010 09:03AM

elviscostello wrote: »

That's a good article. Thanks for posting it. Some of it is questionable as has already been pointed out.

The outcome of that case (or this one) still doesn't change the shocking general concensus in this thread that Gardaí should be allowed to beat suspects.

AH remember!

_feedback_ · 08-10-2010 09:07AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

AH remember!

I know LF, it's been pointed out loads of times, but I can differentiate between joke and serious. Most of them were serious unfortunately

Logical Fallacy · 08-10-2010 09:13AM

elviscostello wrote: »

I know LF, it's been pointed out loads of times, but I can differentiate between joke and serious. Most of them were serious unfortunately

I really should expand on my points more, this time my "It's AH" response was supposed to remind you that "scumbags" have no rights in AH, and certainly should not be processed by the legal system, but rather just shot on sight for even the smallest crimes.

I mean, they are scumbags man, not like the upstanding citizens of AH and most assuredly not entitled to any rights.

Reloc8 · 08-10-2010 09:14AM

Presumably this has been said already...

The guy is not suing the garda in this case. He's a witness (actually the alleged injured party) in a criminal prosecution brought by the DPP, at this stage.

senordingdong · 08-10-2010 09:20AM

dvpower wrote: »

Whose asking for sympathy?
I'd just like to have the rule of law applied.

Understandable request, but I was wondering, do you feel this way about the incident because it's against the law for a Garda to behave this way?
I mean, if the law said it was ok to beat up a scumbag in an incident like this, would it bother you?

*edit - not being sarcy or anything, seriously asking.

Also, request that the thread title be changed!

_feedback_ · 08-10-2010 09:24AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I really should expand on my points more, this time my "It's AH" response was supposed to remind you that "scumbags" have no rights in AH, and certainly should not be processed by the legal system, but rather just shot on sight for even the smallest crimes.

I mean, they are scumbags man, not like the upstanding citizens of AH and most assuredly not entitled to any rights.

Know that too, and I'll have a chuckle at calls to shoot a scumbag for the slightest wrong-doing. But these people are seriously saying that Gardaí should be allowed to beat suspects with no questions asked.

Seriously loike. :eek:

Logical Fallacy · 08-10-2010 09:26AM

elviscostello wrote: »

Know that too, and I'll have a chuckle at calls to shoot a scumbag for the slightest wrong-doing. But these people are seriously saying that Gardaí should be allowed to beat suspects with no questions asked.

Seriously loike. :eek:

Only because they assume they will never been seen as suspects.

Having been on the end of a beating from the Gardaí all i will say is they hit like ****ing women.

dvpower · 08-10-2010 09:57AM

Reloc8 wrote: »

Presumably this has been said already...

The guy is not suing the garda in this case. He's a witness (actually the alleged injured party) in a criminal prosecution brought by the DPP, at this stage.

That point has been made (but ignored by the mob).

dvpower · 08-10-2010 10:05AM

senordingdong wrote: »

Understandable request, but I was wondering, do you feel this way about the incident because it's against the law for a Garda to behave this way?
I mean, if the law said it was ok to beat up a scumbag in an incident like this, would it bother you?

*edit - not being sarcy or anything, seriously asking.

Also, request that the thread title be changed!

It would bother me.
I'd be against a law that would allow members of the Gardai become the judge, jury and executioner and that would circumvent due process.

I'd be interested to see if someone who favours such a change to the law to come up with some very draft outline of the wording of it here. I doubt it would be possible (without leaving the civilised world).

thebullkf · 08-10-2010 10:57AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Only because they assume they will never been seen as suspects.

Having been on the end of a beating from the Gardaí all i will say is they hit like ****ing women.

....at least the Ban gardaí do .... :pac::pac::pac:

someday2010 · 08-10-2010 12:33PM

Pity he didnt kill this piece of dirt. He would have done this country a great favour. Well done to the Garda. Hopefully this will be kicked out of court.

Degsy · 08-10-2010 12:40PM

someday2010 wrote: »

Pity he didnt kill this piece of dirt. He would have done this country a great favour. Well done to the Garda. Hopefully this will be kicked out of court.

Agreed.

Dirty fcucking bastard..they shouldve battered him and thrown him into the liffey.

A downside of the Peace Process is that shiitheads liek this wont be dealt with at "local" level.
Scum.

someday2010 · 08-10-2010 12:48PM

dvpower wrote: »

If you are a member of AGS and were present at the arrest of John Paul Maughan, then its probably not wise for you to be making comments about evidence that has yet to be submitted, on a public internet forum.

It would be very hard to believe someone who gave personal details in previous posts would be so stupid as to do the above

Scumbag sues Garda

Comments