Scumbag sues Garda

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 08:25PM

goat2 wrote: »

well if that was the high the garda take, just follow for a while and then walk away and leave scumbags off,if he did get a shoe up the h-$e, he deserved it,

eh.. come again?

J K · 09-10-2010 08:53PM

goat2 wrote: »

they would not be doing their job

The moral dimension. What about the financial dimension. The self interest dimension. The lad in the dock do you think he's worried about whether he was doing his job or not. He would have been better off going for a drive out the dublin mountains that day or maybe portmarnock. You people seem to think that the Guard has some sort of personal steak in it, that he benefits from anything that does or does not happen to maughan or such people.
He is accused of exceeding the minimum force required to defend himself and subdue the guy. If he was never there in the first place then he could never face such an allegation. Its just simple logic. Simple self preservation.

archer22 · 09-10-2010 08:56PM

Let me get this straight stealing a car is a crime correct?.Beating someone up is a crime correct?.So where is the problem?.Drag them all before the courts and if found guilty throw the whole lot of them in a cell in mountjoy.Simple ehh a crime is a crime...get it!.I am sure there is nothing in Irish law that states someone is above the law because of their profession.Although there are some groups who think that is the case!

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 08:56PM

J K wrote: »

The moral dimension. What about the financial dimension. The self interest dimension. The lad in the dock do you think he's worried about whether he was doing his job or not. He would have been better off going for a drive out the dublin mountains that day or maybe portmarnock. You people seem to think that the Guard has some sort of personal steak in it, that he benefits from anything that does or does not happen to maughan or such people.
He is accused of exceeding the minimum force required to defend himself and subdue the guy. If he was never there in the first place then he could never face such an allegation. Its just simple logic. Simple self preservation.

ten garda vs 2 stoners...

simple logic indeed.

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 08:58PM

archer22 wrote: »

Let me get this straight stealing a car is a crime correct?.Beating someone up is a crime correct?.So where is the problem?.Drag them all before the courts and if found guilty throw the whole lot of them in a cell in mountjoy.Simple ehh a crime is a crime...get it!.I am sure there is nothing in Irish law that states someone is above the law because of their profession.Although there are some groups who think that is the case!

correct.

the garda if guilty, should be prosecuted fully.

goat2 · 09-10-2010 09:00PM

thebullkf wrote: »

ten garda vs 2 stoners...

simple logic indeed.

ten garda stone cold sober,two stoners, out of their minds with drugs and drink, and actually admitting it, those stoners are well able to lie, rob, and hurt, so it is very possible they are telling lies of garda now, and why should anyone listen to them, they should be locked up, trow away the keys, and save money, will a judge really beleive those over a person who has no offenses, i should hope not

J K · 09-10-2010 09:07PM

thebullkf wrote: »

ten garda vs 2 stoners...

simple logic indeed.

Oh you were there so?

dvpower · 09-10-2010 09:15PM

goat2 wrote: »

ten garda stone cold sober,two stoners, out of their minds with drugs and drink, and actually admitting it, those stoners are well able to lie, rob, and hurt, so it is very possible they are telling lies of garda now, and why should anyone listen to them, they should be locked up, trow away the keys, and save money, will a judge really beleive those over a person who has no offenses, i should hope not

You're presupposing that the only evidence that is going to be presented in this trial is witness evidence from the two 'stoners' and from the gardai.

There is likely to be other evidence (otherwise its very hard to imagine why the DPP brought the case). There was a doctor called who treated one of the guys, so there may be medical evidence presented.

goat2 · 09-10-2010 09:16PM

dvpower wrote: »

You're presupposing that the only evidence that is going to be presented in this trial is witness evidence from the two 'stoners' and from the gardai.

There is likely to be other evidence (otherwise its very hard to imagine why the DPP brought the case). There was a doctor called who treated one of the guys, so there may be medical evidence presented.

did they crash the car, this could be the cause of enjuries

HarryPotter41 · 09-10-2010 09:16PM

thebullkf wrote: »

really??...in a civilian role??? . i never said it was pleasant,please don't misquote me.

you deal with ags 8 hours a day..and don't see how training helps?

[QUOTE\]Self explanatory? There was no explanation by you, thats the problem.

the problem was the whole paragraph. imo.

i wa their legal guardian

please don't dare equate police brutality with discipline meted out by a family's legal guardian.
it makes you look silly. not to mention naive.[/QUOTE]

Yes, really, in a civilian role, unless I imagine going to work every day. And my apologies, I hadn't realised assault was allowed once it was in a family setting in this country.

archer22 · 09-10-2010 09:18PM

goat2 wrote: »

ten garda stone cold sober,two stoners, out of their minds with drugs and drink, and actually admitting it, those stoners are well able to lie, rob, and hurt, so it is very possible they are telling lies of garda now, and why should anyone listen to them, they should be locked up, trow away the keys, and save money, will a judge really beleive those over a person who has no offenses, i should hope not

And you assume that Gardai are only capable of telling the truth!!

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 09:40PM

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

the problem was the whole paragraph. imo.

i wa their legal guardian

please don't dare equate police brutality with discipline meted out by a family's legal guardian.
it makes you look silly. not to mention naive.

Yes, really, in a civilian role, unless I imagine going to work every day. And my apologies, I hadn't realised assault was allowed once it was in a family setting in this country.[/QUOTE]

well i must say your posts are quite walter mitty-ish.

Assault ?....

Discipline it was called...not assault.
have you prosecuted your father for 'assaulting' you??

please don't bother replying.i really despair with posts like yours.truly.

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 09:43PM

J K wrote: »

Oh you were there so?

read the evidence.

the DPP are bringing this case.

if the garda lose(which i doubt) then its their own fault.

J K · 09-10-2010 10:02PM

thebullkf wrote: »

read the evidence.

the DPP are bringing this case.

if the garda lose(which i doubt) then its their own fault.

By evidence you mean a newspaper article pasted on to boards.ie ?
You say you want to join the Garda bulk. Bit of education for you, the evidence is the prosecution file, a copy of which you do not have.
Lesson 2, "the DPP are bringing this case" does not in any way shape or form equate to the guilt of the accused. A jury hearing evidence will make that decision.
You say you doubt the garda will lose. Again since you are unfamiliar with a shred of evidence from this case you wouldn't have the first clue either way.

dvpower · 09-10-2010 10:07PM

goat2 wrote: »

did they crash the car, this could be the cause of enjuries

They did crash the car and it is possible that thats where they sustained their injuries. They may also have sustained them when the guards were removing them from the car (quite legally).

I guess that's a question that a third party, the doctor, may be able to provide some evidence on (the nature of the injuries, the types of forces that would cause that type of injury). Its likely that that types of injuries you one might get from a car crash or from being removed forcibly through the window of a car would be different from a beating with batons and being kicked.

We'll have to wait and see.

goat2 · 09-10-2010 10:27PM

dvpower wrote: »

They did crash the car and it is possible that thats where they sustained their injuries. They may also have sustained them when the guards were removing them from the car (quite legally).

I guess that's a question that a third party, the doctor, may be able to provide some evidence on (the nature of the injuries, the types of forces that would cause that type of injury). Its likely that that types of injuries you one might get from a car crash or from being removed forcibly through the window of a car would be different from a beating with batons and being kicked.

We'll have to wait and see.

i would think that, they had to be taken out fairly quickly incase car went up in flames, petrol being a danger, i did see someone having to be dragged out of a car fairly quickly once, and their leg was caught between steering wheel and seat, they got quite a few cuts and bruises, but all was ok a few weeks down the line when shock wore off and healing began. i suspect that was the way with these guys, they did not know people were helping him to live rather that be caught in a ball of smoke.

archer22 · 09-10-2010 10:40PM

goat2 wrote: »

i would think that, they had to be taken out fairly quickly incase car went up in flames, petrol being a danger, i did see someone having to be dragged out of a car fairly quickly once, and their leg was caught between steering wheel and seat, they got quite a few cuts and bruises, but all was ok a few weeks down the line when shock wore off and healing began. i suspect that was the way with these guys, they did not know people were helping him to live rather that be caught in a ball of smoke.

I thought this was a serious thread not comedy central

dvpower · 09-10-2010 10:44PM

goat2 wrote: »

i would think that, they had to be taken out fairly quickly incase car went up in flames, petrol being a danger, i did see someone having to be dragged out of a car fairly quickly once, and their leg was caught between steering wheel and seat, they got quite a few cuts and bruises, but all was ok a few weeks down the line when shock wore off and healing began. i suspect that was the way with these guys, they did not know people were helping him to live rather that be caught in a ball of smoke.

There are specific allegations about being beaten with batons and kicked after handcuffs were put on.

archer22 · 09-10-2010 10:49PM

dvpower wrote: »

There are specific allegations about being beaten with batons and kicked after handcuffs were put on.

I guess that was putting out the fire :rolleyes:

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 10:52PM

J K wrote: »

By evidence you mean a newspaper article pasted on to boards.ie ?

evidence available.

You say you want to join the Garda bulk.

where did i say that?

Bit of education for you, the evidence is the prosecution file, a copy of which you do not have.

thanks for enlightening me.

Lesson 2, "the DPP are bringing this case" does not in any way shape or form equate to the guilt of the accused. A jury hearing evidence will make that decision.

where did i say the accused was guilty?...or infer he was?
i think you need a lesson in humility tbh. no need to educate me.

You say you doubt the garda will lose. Again since you are unfamiliar with a shred of evidence from this case you wouldn't have the first clue either way.

really?

what qualifies you to guess what 'clue' i'd have..

if powers where giving odds. i'd bet on it.

thanks for the lesson. :rolleyes:

J K · 09-10-2010 11:03PM

You say 'available evidence'. You have no available evidence. You have not access to and you have not seen a single piece of testimony from witnesses in this case. If you are not capable of understanding that a newspaper editorial is not evidence (not even a tiny little bit) then there is no point in continuing this, go debate with some school children.

HarryPotter41 · 09-10-2010 11:15PM

thebullkf wrote: »

Yes, really, in a civilian role, unless I imagine going to work every day. And my apologies, I hadn't realised assault was allowed once it was in a family setting in this country.

well i must say your posts are quite walter mitty-ish.

Assault ?....

Discipline it was called...not assault.
have you prosecuted your father for 'assaulting' you??

please don't bother replying.i really despair with posts like yours.truly.[/QUOTE]

How are they walter mittyish, I work as a civilian employee of AGS, I don't know how thats walter mittyish, and actually assault is assault, regardless of whether it is in the family home or outside of it. I would have no intention of prosecuting anyone who thumped me, I had no problem with it, what I got I deserved, you are the one that seems to have issue with it.Public forum, reply if I so desire.

Overheal · 09-10-2010 11:32PM

thebullkf wrote: »

Assault ?....

Discipline it was called...not assault.
have you prosecuted your father for 'assaulting' you??

You've never heard of Child Abuse?

You may also be unaware that parents that adopt children sign a contract never to "Discipline" their child with any such force (At least in South Carolina Law..). It's completely unnecessary to assault any child under your care.

As for an Adult being "disciplined" by a parent, that situation should never arise.

dvpower · 09-10-2010 11:37PM

J K wrote: »

You say 'available evidence'. You have no available evidence. You have not access to and you have not seen a single piece of testimony from witnesses in this case. If you are not capable of understanding that a newspaper editorial is not evidence (not even a tiny little bit) then there is no point in continuing this, go debate with some school children.

There have been a number of newspaper reports of some of the evidence presented so far in the court case. Some of it included direct quotes of evidence given in the court by witnesses.
To pretend that we don't know anything about what is going on in the trial is childish.

goat2 · 09-10-2010 11:38PM

dvpower wrote: »

There are specific allegations about being beaten with batons and kicked after handcuffs were put on.

from a person who stole a car, and has a history of crime, well this individual has not been a saint in the past, and i would not beleive a word out of the mouth of a person of that callibre

steddyeddy · 09-10-2010 11:41PM

How many of you who support police violence towards criminals by members of the gaurda support vigilantisim?

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 11:43PM

J K wrote: »

You say 'available evidence'. You have no available evidence. You have not access to and you have not seen a single piece of testimony from witnesses in this case. If you are not capable of understanding that a newspaper editorial is not evidence (not even a tiny little bit) then there is no point in continuing this, go debate with some school children.

i am methinks.

the evidence available to me is the DPP are bringing a case against a garda.

not the scumbag.

thats enough.

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 11:47PM

Overheal wrote: »

You've never heard of Child Abuse?

You may also be unaware that parents that adopt children sign a contract never to "Discipline" their child with any such force (At least in South Carolina Law..).

]

are you for ****ing real?....

child abuse??

adoption???

south carolina?

It's completely unnecessary to assault any child under your care.

i agree.

As for an Adult being "disciplined" by a parent, that situation should never arise.

huh?

dvpower · 09-10-2010 11:48PM

goat2 wrote: »

from a person who stole a car, and has a history of crime, well this individual has not been a saint in the past, and i would not beleive a word out of the mouth of a person of that callibre

You're missing the point I was making. We may not need to rely on the word of the guy who says he was beaten. The medical evidence may point in one direction or another.

If the medical evidence corroborates his version of events, then his evidence becomes much more reliable. And (I'm speculating here) if this bit of evidence becomes more reliable, and it contradicts evidence given by the defendant, then it makes the word of the complainant more reliable and the word of the guard less reliable.

(Admittedly, this is a lot of speculation)

thebullkf · 09-10-2010 11:49PM

goat2 wrote: »

from a person who stole a car, and has a history of crime, well this individual has not been a saint in the past, and i would not beleive a word out of the mouth of a person of that callibre

i would tend to agree with this sentiment,but he's entitled to humane treatment nonetheless.

would you agree?

Scumbag sues Garda

Comments