Scumbag sues Garda

Beetleman · 13-10-2010 05:19PM

dvpower wrote: »

The verdict was not guilty but the garda didn't come out it it smelling like roses. The judge was quite critical of the garda.

Perhaps he will reflect on his actions, while short of a criminal offence, attract these kind of comments from a judge.

DVPOWER your still not happy now your saying the garda didnt come out smelling of roses maybe he doesnt like ROSES like u dont like GARDA Did u honestly think SCUM was going to beat the GARDA in this case Hes A free man so get over it

Ste_D · 13-10-2010 05:27PM

The fact that the guard was even put through this is a disgrace. He risked his life chasing, catching and arresting a complete scumbag.

smash · 13-10-2010 05:31PM

It says the trial still continues http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/gardai-defend-colleague-on-assault-charge-2376131.html

K-9 · 13-10-2010 05:33PM

senordingdong wrote: »

Never seen or heard of an innocent person getting a hiding myself.

You not familiar with the McBrearty case?

IRLConor · 13-10-2010 05:37PM

steve06 wrote: »

It says the trial still continues http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/gardai-defend-colleague-on-assault-charge-2376131.html

It's definitely finished. That story is from this morning I'd say.

dvpower · 13-10-2010 05:40PM

Beetleman wrote: »

DVPOWER your still not happy now your saying the garda didnt come out smelling of roses maybe he doesnt like ROSES like u dont like GARDA Did u honestly think SCUM was going to beat the GARDA in this case Hes A free man so get over it

Sorry. All I see is "DVPOWER ROSES GARDA SCUM GARDA".
Was there an actual point?

Beetleman · 13-10-2010 06:37PM

dvpower wrote: »

Sorry. All I see is "DVPOWER ROSES GARDA SCUM GARDA".
Was there an actual point?

You just dont like the garda u must have been a bold boy at some stage well Gerard Curtis got justice and will be back to work doing a great job and by the way u are the one that was on about roses first u must like them Byeeee

Super-Rush · 13-10-2010 06:47PM

Beetleman wrote: »

The ASS holes on this forum thats stanting up for the SCUMBAGS is that clear enough for ya

super-rush wrote: »

So you're basically saying that anyone who disagreed with you is an asshole?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

senordingdong · 13-10-2010 06:55PM

dvpower wrote: »

They aren't, but they should be taken seriously. The 'Rodney King' comment is already being widely reported, so the garda may be seen as bringing the gardai into disrepute.

When a judge compares an incident involving a garda to the Rodney King incident, the garda authorities should take note.

Well it's even more offensive that a judge (who is supposed to follow the letter of the law) would give a not guilty verdict, and then make those comments like some sort of tabloid reporter.

dvpower · 13-10-2010 07:02PM

senordingdong wrote: »

Well it's even more offensive that a judge (who is supposed to follow the letter of the law) would give a not guilty verdict, and then make those comments like some sort of tabloid reporter.

I have to agree. To instruct a not guilty verdict and at the same time make a comparison to Rodney King seems contradictory.

IRLConor · 13-10-2010 07:14PM

dvpower wrote: »

I have to agree. To instruct a not guilty verdict and at the same time make a comparison to Rodney King seems contradictory.

The not guilty verdict was instructed because of a specific legal point. He followed the letter of the law while simultaneously expressing a non-legal opinion. Contradictory? Maybe. Unreasonable? Not at all. It is possible to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time if you make an effort.

The CCTV footage was similar in some respects to the Rodney King video while being very different in others. I can see how it would evoke memories of Rodney King in the minds of those who've seen both videos but I wouldn't personally see them as comparable.

steddyeddy · 13-10-2010 10:47PM

thebullkf wrote: »

i have, more than once.;)

me too several times

archer22 · 13-10-2010 10:49PM

IRLConor wrote: »

The not guilty verdict was instructed because of a specific legal point. He followed the letter of the law while simultaneously expressing a non-legal opinion. Contradictory? Maybe. Unreasonable? Not at all. It is possible to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time if you make an effort.

The CCTV footage was similar in some respects to the Rodney King video while being very different in others. I can see how it would evoke memories of Rodney King in the minds of those who've seen both videos but I wouldn't personally see them as comparable.

A specific legal point again same as Waldron in Galway.Quite a pattern emerging here.Anyhow only an idiot could ever think that a Guard would be found guilty by an irish court except in a very very extreme and rare case.Cronyism and gombeenism is embedded in irish society.

steddyeddy · 13-10-2010 10:50PM

dvpower wrote: »

From the Irish Times

The judge is very critical of the gardai (both the defendant and those who gave evidence). I wonder what reaction, if any, the garda authorities will have to that.

You would be surprised how often a judges are critical of gardai, one I met told me "the gaurds always lie"

ScumLord · 14-10-2010 12:09AM

I think the outcome is good, the guard may have lost the head a bit but in fairness he's young and got a public "cool the head". The guy he was arresting was an ass that probably would have gotten worse if he'd been caught by some one else.

Dudess · 14-10-2010 12:13AM

Beetleman wrote: »

You just dont like the garda u must have been a bold boy at some stage well Gerard Curtis got justice and will be back to work doing a great job and by the way u are the one that was on about roses first u must like them Byeeee

You're full of sh1t.

senordingdong · 14-10-2010 09:14AM

IRLConor wrote: »

The not guilty verdict was instructed because of a specific legal point. He followed the letter of the law while simultaneously expressing a non-legal opinion. Contradictory? Maybe. Unreasonable? Not at all. It is possible to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time if you make an effort.

The CCTV footage was similar in some respects to the Rodney King video while being very different in others. I can see how it would evoke memories of Rodney King in the minds of those who've seen both videos but I wouldn't personally see them as comparable.

Yes but his comments contribute nothing.
He makes these comments while looking down on the garda for his apparent dis-respect for the letter of the law, while right here, he has done no better.

AudreyHepburn · 14-10-2010 09:57AM

Glad to see a Not Guilty verdict personally. The Garda may have over-reacted slightly but that's not the same as an all out assault.

As for the Judge's comments, that was her personal opinion, to which she is of course entitled, and it could be that on the CCTV video the whole incedant looked a lot worse than it actually was.

IRLConor · 14-10-2010 10:17AM

senordingdong wrote: »

Yes but his comments contribute nothing.
He makes these comments while looking down on the garda for his apparent dis-respect for the letter of the law, while right here, he has done no better.

The judge was respecting the letter of the law when he forced the verdict to be not guilty. How could you reasonably claim otherwise? Unless perhaps you're a legal professional and thought he made a technical mistake?

From the evidence given to that point in the trial, it was far from clear cut what the verdict would be.

dvpower · 14-10-2010 10:30AM

IRLConor wrote: »

From the evidence given to that point in the trial, it was far from clear cut what the verdict would be.

Hey, lots of posters here predicted a non guilty verdict (and all the evidence they needed was the fact that scumbags are scumbags).

senordingdong · 14-10-2010 10:46AM

IRLConor wrote: »

The judge was respecting the letter of the law when he forced the verdict to be not guilty.

Because on the record, in the courtoom, in an official capacity, he delivered a verdict declaring the defendant to be innocent.
Then, on the record, in the courtoom, in an an apparently impersonal and official capacity, he made snide comments that represented his personal opinion (and not that of the court or legal system) which declared that the defendant was in the wrong.

Audrey Hepburn wrote:

As for the Judge's comments, that was her personal opinion, to which she is of course entitled

Personal opinions are certainly entitlement, but they don't belong in the court room.

AudreyHepburn · 14-10-2010 10:54AM

dvpower wrote: »

Hey, lots of posters here predicted a non guilty verdict (and all the evidence they needed was the fact that scumbags are scumbags).

That wasn't it and you know it. The social standing of the accuser and the fact that the Garda was a Garda were irrelevant.

The fact was the acusser was blind drunk and drugged at the time, as he himself admitted, so not a reliable witness in my own opinion at least.

Not to mention he had stolen a car at knife point and tried to out run the Gardai, driving said car under the influence, so I suggest he was probably being resistant as well as armed when they were arresting him.

If the accuser was a 9 months pregnant single Mum, as I said before, I, and I am sure others, would have had the same opinion.

AudreyHepburn · 14-10-2010 10:57AM

senordingdong wrote: »

Personal opinions are certainly entitlement, but they don't belong in the court room.

Oh I agree completely! I was making the point we should take her opinion as an indication of the Garda's guilt.

_feedback_ · 14-10-2010 11:06AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That wasn't it and you know it.

You've used that line a couple of times in this thread. Please don't. How can you tell people what they know or don't know? We all have our own minds and our own opinions.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The social standing of the accuser and the fact that the Garda was a Garda were irrelevant.

Huh?

That was completely relevant. Look at the thread title. The whole point of my input here was that Gardaí shouldn't be allowed to beat a suspect.

The whole point of the vast majority here was that scumbags deserve a beating.

IRLConor · 14-10-2010 11:11AM

senordingdong wrote: »

Because on the record, in the courtoom, in an official capacity, he delivered a verdict declaring the defendant to be innocent.
Then, on the record, in the courtoom, in an an apparently impersonal and official capacity, he made snide comments that represented his personal opinion (and not that of the court or legal system) which declared that the defendant was in the wrong.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick. If you had been in court and not relied solely on news coverage then I'm sure you wouldn't find it so sensational. Bear in mind that the news media only cover the "juicy" parts and in so doing they distort what actually happened.

MagicSean · 14-10-2010 11:12AM

elviscostello wrote: »

You've used that line a couple of times in this thread. Please don't. How can you tell people what they know or don't know? We all have our own minds and our own opinions.

Huh?

That was completely relevant. Look at the thread title. The whole point of my input here was that Gardaí shouldn't be allowed to beat a suspect.

The whole point of the vast majority here was that scumbags deserve a beating.

Whats relevant to this thread is a far cry from what is relevant to a judge.

_feedback_ · 14-10-2010 11:15AM

k_mac wrote: »

Whats relevant to this thread is a far cry from what is relevant to a judge.

I realise that. The post I was replying to was directed at the below post, which is directly pointing to the postings in this thread.

(my interests were in this thread and not the outcome of the case)

dvpower wrote: »

Hey, lots of posters here predicted a non guilty verdict (and all the evidence they needed was the fact that scumbags are scumbags).

dvpower · 14-10-2010 12:33PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That wasn't it and you know it. The social standing of the accuser and the fact that the Garda was a Garda were irrelevant.

Not to many of the posters here who predicted the outcome of this trial and based this on the the fact that the alleged victim guy was a scumbag. One went so far to say that if he was on the jury, he would acquit regardless of the evidence. Some went so far to suggest that it would have been ok for the garda to murder the scumbag and dump his corpse in the Liffey.

The judge, on the other hand, (I hope) remained impartial and made decisions based solely on the law and the evidence presented.

acme4242 · 14-10-2010 12:54PM

where is the youtube of the CCTV coverage ?

it must be available under freedom of information ACT.

AudreyHepburn · 14-10-2010 12:57PM

dvpower wrote: »

Not to many of the posters here who predicted the outcome of this trial and based this on the the fact that the alleged victim guy was a scumbag. One went so far to say that if he was on the jury, he would acquit regardless of the evidence. Some went so far to suggest that it would have been ok for the garda to murder the scumbag and dump his corpse in the Liffey.

The judge, on the other hand, (I hope) remained impartial and made decisions based solely on the law and the evidence presented.

After Hours remember?

Scumbag sues Garda

Comments