It's official: Gardai are above the law.

FlutterinBantam · 27-05-2011 07:52PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You said that judge invoked legislation. No where that I can see does it say that. If you are going to claim that the Judge did such a thing then its not too much of a stretch to ask what legislation this was.

In fact I dare say many members here would appreciate reading the legislation so we can become more familiar with the legalities of this issue. In fact it will even back up your argument that justice was done.

I look forward to reading it.

Nice to see we have arrived on the head of the pin.;)

And the whole jist of the thread has been sidestepped.

Your mentor has trained you well.

The judge invoked a Principle of Law which he was perfectly entitled to do.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 07:57PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

"He is a dangerous criminal and should be in prison with his own kind"

What backup have you for making that statement pal.?

Of course the attack was totally reprehensible, but unfortunately hundreds of such events occur over every week-end in Ireland, in chip shops all over the country.

How many of these 'dangerous criminals' are sent to prison?

And you see no correlation between these two statements?
In other words: Maybe if people were properly punished, it WOULDN'T happen every weekend.

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 07:58PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Nice to see we have arrived on the head of the pin.;)

And the whole jist of the thread has been sidestepped.

Your mentor has trained you well.

The judge invoked a Principal of Law which he was perfectly entitled to do.

Ah yes, so it is a "legal principal" not legislation as you claimed while emphatically claiming you were pronouncing the facts...

Entitled to perhaps... Obliged to? (this is what you implied when you said it was legislation)

Cozy relationship indeed.

FlutterinBantam · 27-05-2011 07:59PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And you see no correlation between these two statements?
In other words: Maybe if people were properly punished, it WOULDN'T happen every weekend.

You got me there .

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 08:02PM

lizt wrote: »

Having one law for gardai and another for the general population is really unfair.

This. And I'd go further and say that having one law for ANYONE and another for ANYONE else is really unfair. All members of society above a certain age and with sound mental capacity should be held to the exact same standards and punished exactly the same way if they break them.

I'm not anti Garda by the way, I'm anti double standards. I have made threads just like this one in the past calling out cases where a woman gets a lesser sentence for the exact same crime a man got a tough sentence for, and I have made similar threads where someone is treated more harshly by the law because of their race.

I am very simply an equalitist. I believe all human beings are equal and nobody should be an exception to the law. Either everyone has to follow it or nobody does. No hypocrisy. A civilized democracy has no place for hypocrites.

MagicSean · 27-05-2011 08:02PM

lizt wrote: »

And the legislation is a joke. I understand that a garda would get a tougher time but tough! Should have thought of that before he pounded a guy to a pulp.

My worry is that this case sets a precedent. What's to stop other gardai commiting crimes, safe in the knowledge that they'll get away with it (albeit that they will lose their job etc). The majority of gardai, in my experience, are very decent. But the judgement in this case may stop a garda from thinking about the consequences if they do commit a crime.

First of all, he didn't get away with anything. He has a prison sentence hanging over him for a good while. He also has lost his job and has a conviction to his name. He has been punished more than most people in his position would be.

Secondly, the rule he invoked does not mean a Garda can't go to jail, it means the judge can consider the treatment he would get as a mitigating factor when deciding the sentence, the same way he could treat an addiction as a mitigating factor, or a poor upbringing, or family commitments, or any other sob story you hear in courts. If he had claimed he was an alcoholic he probably would have gotten an even lighter sentence. This is our justice system.

People have said it could lead to paedophiles demanding lesser sentences because of how they would be treated. Such bull****. Gardaí are targeted because of the good they do, paedophiles because of the bad. To compare the two is ridiculous.

Thirdly, I dont think he "beat him to a pulp" although i don't doubt his injuries were substantial. He punched him a few times in response to some homophobic comments. He was unfortunate in that his punches did so much damage to the victim. His fight was no different to the dozens of drunken brawls that happen every weekend all over the country. It's very unlikely he meant to do that much harm to him.

Finally, I had to laugh at the SF justice spokesman. He went on about "one rule for them and one for the rest of us". Clearly he has forgotten the whole Good Friday agreement which released so many murderers onto the streets. He also claimed that anybody else in the same position would be in jail, effectively proving he has never actually been in a criminal court. I challenge anyone to find me the case of a person who pleads guilty, has no previous convictions, demonstrates genuine remorse and produces a substantial sum of compensation and who receives a custodial sentence.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 08:02PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You got me there .

Are you saying you agree with me, or that you don't understand the point I'm making...?

Nodin · 27-05-2011 08:04PM

mikom wrote: »

Do guards receive any special training in Templemore or later on that is aimed at helping them cope with aggressive behavior/insulting comments directed at them?

Yep.

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 08:05PM

Thirdly, I dont think he "beat him to a pulp" although i don't doubt his injuries were substantial. He punched him a few times in response to some homophobic comments. He was unfortunate in that his punches did so much damage to the victim. His fight was no different to the dozens of drunken brawls that happen every weekend all over the country. It's very unlikely he meant to do that much harm to him.

That doesn't matter, such injuries are foreseeable, especially seen as he is a garda he should know better. The actions were unlawful.

27-05-2011 08:06PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Thirdly, I dont think he "beat him to a pulp" although i don't doubt his injuries were substantial. He punched him a few times in response to some homophobic comments. He was unfortunate in that his punches did so much damage to the victim.

In fairness the damage he did would take some very decent and strong punches, I'd hazard a guess he was very aware of the damage he was doing. Most folk would.

FlutterinBantam · 27-05-2011 08:07PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Ah yes, so it is a "legal principal" not legislation as you claimed while emphatically claiming you were pronouncing the facts...

Entitled to perhaps... Obliged to? (this is what you implied when you said it was legislation)

Cozy relationship indeed.

Let's tango on the head of the pin for a while and bore everyone eh?

Not 'legal principal' (sic). 'Principle of law'.

I'm sure most people will understand the issue in the context of the thread.

It's vital .:D

MagicSean · 27-05-2011 08:07PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

That doesn't matter, such injuries are foreseeable, especially seen as he is a garda he should know better. The actions were unlawful.

I never said they weren't unlawful. But I disagree with your assertion that it is foreseeable that a few punches could cause that much damage to someone.

FlutterinBantam · 27-05-2011 08:09PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you saying you agree with me, or that you don't understand the point I'm making...?

Haven't a clue what your point is lad.

Sorry.

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 08:09PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Let's tango on the head of the pin for a while and bore everyone eh?

Not 'legal principal' (sic). 'Principle of law'.

I'm sure most people will understand the issue in the context of the thread.

It's vital .:D

Its a rather big deal claiming that the Oireachtas put legislation in place to give Gardaí lenient sentences.

Bit of a mistake you made there boss? Or is there legislation?

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 08:09PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Would you have posted this if he wasn't a copper

Yes I would have, if the accused was a member of some other group which enjoys any degree of immunity from the law simply because they belong to that group.
There should be NO such groups.

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 08:10PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I never said they weren't unlawful. But I disagree with your assertion that it is foreseeable that a few punches could cause that much damage to someone.

Does it matter? Eggshell skull etc?

MagicSean · 27-05-2011 08:12PM

RoverJames wrote: »

In fairness the damage he did would take some very decent and strong punches, I'd hazard a guess he was very aware of the damage he was doing. Most folk would.

I've seen people do some very stupid things when they have a bit of drink on board and not remember them the next day. It is possible he intended to do that much damage but it is an unfair assumption to make. I would never have thought punching someone a few times could cause that many broken bones and bleeding to the brain.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 08:12PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Haven't a clue what your point is lad.

Sorry.

Ok let me break it down.
You made two statements, which I will number 1, and 2.

Statement number 1:
"This kind of thing happens hundreds of times every weekend in this country."

Statement number 2:
"Do you see it being harshly punished?"

Now, do you not see a connection here?
As in, maybe the REASON they happen every weekend is because people know they will GET AWAY with it.

And you're arguing that we shouldn't be pissed off about this?
Tell me, when you think of "justice", how would you define the word?

*facedesk*

Nodin · 27-05-2011 08:12PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I never said they weren't unlawful. But I disagree with your assertion that it is foreseeable that a few punches could cause that much damage to someone.

For starters, there was more than punches, and more than one involved.

Mr Wilkinson said one man (Mr Murphy) was forcibly pushed into a metal railing by one of two young men. He said the man (Mr Murphy) fell to the ground and the other person kicked him in the stomach.
When the young man (Mr Murphy) struggled to regain his feet, he was then attacked by the second individual.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/garda-guilty-of-street-assault-2644546.html

MagicSean · 27-05-2011 08:13PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Does it matter? Eggshell skull etc?

Eggshell skull means that he is responsable for the damage, not that he intended it.

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 08:14PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Eggshell skull means that he is responsable for the damage, not that he intended it.

Exactly, even if he didn't mean it.

This garda battered his victim so badly he had no recollection.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 08:15PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I've seen people do some very stupid things when they have a bit of drink on board and not remember them the next day. It is possible he intended to do that much damage but it is an unfair assumption to make. I would never have thought punching someone a few times could cause that many broken bones and bleeding to the brain.

That doesn't change the fact that it's illegal, and that the judgement makes it very obvious that he would have been sentenced if he wasn't a Gard.

The judgement:

"6 months in prison. Oh wait, you're a Gard, you have an exemption, sorry forgot about that. Suspend the sentence instead."

How can you not see the problem here?
He got off not because it was unintentional, not because someone else in that position would have got off, not because of anything relating to the crime itself.

He got off solely and ONLY because of his occupation. That is what I have a problem with. He essentially belongs to a group which is allowed loopholes under the law. I am arguing that NO group should be given ANY special treatment of ANY kind.

FlutterinBantam · 27-05-2011 08:15PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its a rather big deal claiming that the Oireachtas put legislation in place to give Gardaí lenient sentences.

Bit of a mistake you made there boss? Or is there legislation?

You might see it as a big deal bud, but where I come from it isn't.

Always knew it would end on the head of the pin, that's how you guys work, ignore the big issues, and drill down the immaterial ones;)

MagicSean · 27-05-2011 08:15PM

Nodin wrote: »

For starters, there was more than punches, and more than one involved.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/garda-guilty-of-street-assault-2644546.html

Unfortunately the actual assault isn't described pretty well anywhere so it's hard to tell.

LizT · 27-05-2011 08:16PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

First of all, he didn't get away with anything. He has a prison sentence hanging over him for a good while. He also has lost his job and has a conviction to his name. He has been punished more than most people in his position would be.

Secondly, the rule he invoked does not mean a Garda can't go to jail, it means the judge can consider the treatment he would get as a mitigating factor when deciding the sentence, the same way he could treat an addiction as a mitigating factor, or a poor upbringing, or family commitments, or any other sob story you hear in courts. If he had claimed he was an alcoholic he probably would have gotten an even lighter sentence. This is our justice system.

People have said it could lead to paedophiles demanding lesser sentences because of how they would be treated. Such bull****. Gardaí are targeted because of the good they do, paedophiles because of the bad. To compare the two is ridiculous.

Thirdly, I dont think he "beat him to a pulp" although i don't doubt his injuries were substantial. He punched him a few times in response to some homophobic comments. He was unfortunate in that his punches did so much damage to the victim. His fight was no different to the dozens of drunken brawls that happen every weekend all over the country. It's very unlikely he meant to do that much harm to him.

Finally, I had to laugh at the SF justice spokesman. He went on about "one rule for them and one for the rest of us". Clearly he has forgotten the whole Good Friday agreement which released so many murderers onto the streets. He also claimed that anybody else in the same position would be in jail, effectively proving he has never actually been in a criminal court. I challenge anyone to find me the case of a person who pleads guilty, has no previous convictions, demonstrates genuine remorse and produces a substantial sum of compensation and who receives a custodial sentence.

Check your definition of homophobia. Stating something is gay is not homophobia. Not denying it was wrong of the victim to do, but it's not homophobia.

Also, he hit him so hard he caused bleeding on the brain, broken bones and teeth. I have first hand experience of how a brain injury can devastate a person's life. The victim was fortunate enough not to receive a brain injury, but I know how a few punches, as you say, can cause someone to lose the ability to walk, talk, feed themselves, affect their cognition and their ability to function as a human being.

He was not, as you say, "unfortunate" his punches caused the damage. He was in fact VERY FORTUNATE his punches didn't cause more damage.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 08:16PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You might see it as a big deal bud, but where I come from it isn't.

Always knew it would end on the head of the pin, that's how you guys work, ignore the big issues, and drill down the immaterial ones;)

Can you at least explain your logic for why you believe a certain section of society should be treated differently to everyone else?

Do you not share the belief that all human beings are equal?

MagicSean · 27-05-2011 08:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that it's illegal, and that the judgement makes it very obvious that he would have been sentenced if he wasn't a Gard.

The judgement:

"6 months in prison. Oh wait, you're a Gard, you have an exemption, sorry forgot about that. Suspend the sentence instead."

How can you not see the problem here?
He got off not because it was unintentional, not because someone else in that position would have got off, not because of anything relating to the crime itself.

He got off solely and ONLY because of his occupation. That is what I have a problem with. He essentially belongs to a group which is allowed loopholes under the law. I am arguing that NO group should be given ANY special treatment of ANY kind.

Six months in jail. Oh wait you're a junkie? Suspended sentence and you have to go to rehab.

How is it different?

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 08:18PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Six months in jail. Oh wait you're a junkie? Suspended sentence and you have to go to rehab.

How is it different?

It isn't. I would argue the same way in such a case.
An assault is an assault. End of story. If you're a legal adult and you have no mental incapacitates, these should be the ONLY mitigating factors allowed.

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 08:20PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You might see it as a big deal bud, but where I come from it isn't.

Always knew it would end on the head of the pin, that's how you guys work, ignore the big issues, and drill down the immaterial ones;)

"you guys"? Care to elaborate there? And I aint your bud btw!

Surprising (or maybe not) that you cant see that it would be a big deal if the government legislated in order to ensure Gardaí received lenient sentences.

Maybe next time you wont make a mistake and we can all avoid this

No ones infallible!

MagicSean · 27-05-2011 08:21PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It isn't. I would argue the same way in such a case.
An assault is an assault. End of story. If you're a legal adult and you have no mental incapacitates, these should be the ONLY mitigating factors allowed.

How about this. Two people in court for assaulting each other. One filthy rich and one dirt poor. Both get a fine of €1000. Who gets the harsher punishment?

It's official: Gardai are above the law.

Comments