It's official: Gardai are above the law.

hatrickpatrick · 28-05-2011 09:59PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Being hit with a baseball bat (or any weapon) makes it a LOT worse.

True, the consequences could be similar or worse, but as with everything in life it's about the level of "intent".

Losing the head and hitting someone is completely different to going off to find a weapon and then lashing out with it.....there's a word for people who do that, and as far as I know boards doesn't like us using it.

How do you know he didn't just grab one in the middle of an argument and use it?

The amount of supposition in this thread is unbelievable. Someone was slagged off a bit and responded by violently and viciously attacking somebody and almost causing brain damage to them. They are walking free from court with no judicial punishment whatsoever for that crime (unless they do something equally moronic again). Those are the facts of the case.

Everything else is supposition.

MagicSean · 28-05-2011 10:20PM

end a eknny wrote: »

seems strange that somebody gets off because jail would be too tough. is that not the whole idea. it must be reassuring for thoe who are charged with upholding the law are immune from prison when they break those same laws

Immune? It's a mitigating factor, just like so many other factors a judge can take account of. Nobody is immune to anything. It just so happened that in this case the extra mitigating factor resulted in a suspension of the remainder of the term.

If you want to have true justice then everyone should suffer an equal level of pubishment. A rich person should receive a higher fine than a poor person, a person who would suffer more in prison should have a lower time in prison. In this way the overall effect on the individual being punished is the same all around. It's obvious that many people can't grasp this concept though.

end a eknny · 28-05-2011 10:32PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Immune? It's a mitigating factor, just like so many other factors a judge can take account of. Nobody is immune to anything. It just so happened that in this case the extra mitigating factor resulted in a suspension of the remainder of the term.

If you want to have true justice then everyone should suffer an equal level of pubishment. A rich person should receive a higher fine than a poor person, a person who would suffer more in prison should have a lower time in prison. In this way the overall effect on the individual being punished is the same all around. It's obvious that many people can't grasp this concept though.

what! no group should have a get out of jail free card this isnt the first time a member of the gardai have escaped a jail sentence on the basis of the resultant hardship. this just feeds into the view that most people already have that it one law for them and another for us. at the end of the day the old addage should apply if you cant do the time dont do the crime

AudreyHepburn · 28-05-2011 11:12PM

cordub wrote: »

glad to see that you do think this person should have been locked up the same as any other member of the public who commits assault. In no way do i think and Im sure any resonable person would allow this instance to taint their views on the majority of good Gardai. The Legal system once again is wrong as it was in the case of allowing Garda MC Callions killer to walk free and remember this was a garda doing his job and because of his job died !!!The system needs a good overhall in the interest of fairness to all who break laws irreguardless of your profession or background !!!!

I'm sure most won't allow this colour their view but then again there is an awful lot of negativity towards our police force and my concern is that this will add fuel to the fire.

The very title of this thread is an example.

I agree our legal and justice systems need a serious overhaul.

MagicSean · 29-05-2011 10:14AM

end a eknny wrote: »

what! no group should have a get out of jail free card this isnt the first time a member of the gardai have escaped a jail sentence on the basis of the resultant hardship. this just feeds into the view that most people already have that it one law for them and another for us. at the end of the day the old addage should apply if you cant do the time dont do the crime

How is it a get out of jail free card? It just suspended 6 months of a sentence. If he hadn't paid compensation or hadnt shown remorse he probably would have gotten custody. It was only one factor in many.

hatrickpatrick · 29-05-2011 03:18PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

How is it a get out of jail free card? It just suspended 6 months of a sentence. If he hadn't paid compensation or hadnt shown remorse he probably would have gotten custody. It was only one factor in many.

Very, very clearly and distinctly, if he hadn't been a Gard he would have got a jail sentence.
The fact that he was a Gard was the only reason the sentence was change to suspended. The ONLY reason.

Crann na Beatha · 29-05-2011 03:27PM

This post has been deleted.

MagicSean · 29-05-2011 03:58PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Very, very clearly and distinctly, if he hadn't been a Gard he would have got a jail sentence.
The fact that he was a Gard was the only reason the sentence was change to suspended. The ONLY reason.

What about the other twelve months that were suspended?

So i assume you would have been happier if he had claimed to be an alcoholic and gotten it suspended for that reason?

hatrickpatrick · 29-05-2011 06:40PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

What about the other twelve months that were suspended?

They weren't suspended only and specifically for the reason of "him being a Gard", now were they?

So i assume you would have been happier if he had claimed to be an alcoholic and gotten it suspended for that reason?

If he had actually been an alcoholic it might have been reasonable since there's an issue of whether or not an alcoholic is fully knowledgable and responsible for their actions (although in my view you choose to go down that road unless you're brought up with it, so you should still get the same as anyone else would)

Poccington · 29-05-2011 08:01PM

The fact that he isn't staring at the four walls of a cell right now, is an absolute disgrace.

hatrickpatrick · 29-05-2011 08:28PM

Poccington wrote: »

The fact that he isn't staring at the four walls of a cell right now, is an absolute disgrace.

+1, and on top of this, the fact that so many people seem to approve of such a double standard is making me lost all faith in humanity

prinz · 29-05-2011 08:42PM

Seems some people can't tell the difference between a sentence being reduced and a sentence being written off completely.

Show Time · 29-05-2011 08:44PM

I have to wonder if it was johnny scumbags mother who had been crying to the judge would she have been held in contempt of court??

hatrickpatrick · 29-05-2011 08:50PM

prinz wrote: »

Seems some people can't tell the difference between a sentence being reduced and a sentence being written off completely.

He has had the ENTIRE sentence suspended. He walks free. He served one day in prison for beating a guy enough to cause internal brain bleeding.

prinz · 29-05-2011 08:54PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He has had the ENTIRE sentence suspended. He walks free. He served one day in prison for beating a guy enough to cause internal brain bleeding.

Get off your high horse for a start. He should be doing prison time, I fully accept that. The problem is you cannot compare someone having 18 months of a sentence suspended and comparing to somebody else getting sentenced to 8 years. You cannot compare two cases and two sentences without factoring a lot of variable, so pointing to the other case is meaningless.

AudreyHepburn · 29-05-2011 09:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He has had the ENTIRE sentence suspended. He walks free. He served one day in prison for beating a guy enough to cause internal brain bleeding.

First we know the facts, you don't need to keep repeating them as if we are too thick to grasp them.

Second no-one is denying Foley should be imprisoned for what he did.

Third, and I may be wrong, but doesn't a suspended sentence usually have to be served eventually? If so technically Foley hasn't gotten away scot free.

Fourth it isn't as though he isn't paying dearly for his crime:; he'll lose his job, his reputation etc and will spend his life with the knowledge of what he did.

hatrickpatrick · 29-05-2011 09:30PM

prinz wrote: »

Get off your high horse for a start. He should be doing prison time, I fully accept that. The problem is you cannot compare someone having 18 months of a sentence suspended and comparing to somebody else getting sentenced to 8 years. You cannot compare two cases and two sentences without factoring a lot of variable, so pointing to the other case is meaningless.

...?

What am I comparing in that post? I'm saying that the remaining 6 months which was suspended purely and only because of the man's occupation is wrong and unjust. That's all I'm saying.

AudreyHepburn · 29-05-2011 09:42PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...?

What am I comparing in that post? I'm saying that the remaining 6 months which was suspended purely and only because of the man's occupation is wrong and unjust. That's all I'm saying.

No-one is saying otherwise in fairness.

hatrickpatrick · 29-05-2011 09:49PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

First we know the facts, you don't need to keep repeating them as if we are too thick to grasp them.

LULZ

:D:D:D:D:D

Second no-one is denying Foley should be imprisoned for what he did.

Then why are you defending the suspension of the entire sentence based on the man's occupation and nothing more?

Third, and I may be wrong, but doesn't a suspended sentence usually have to be served eventually? If so technically Foley hasn't gotten away scot free.

Only if he commits another crime. If he remains with a clean record for the duration of the suspension he never pays any penalty whatsoever.

Fourth it isn't as though he isn't paying dearly for his crime:; he'll lose his job, his reputation etc and will spend his life with the knowledge of what he did.

None of those are legal consequences. I'm suggesting that it's the job of the LAW to punish breaking of the LAW.

Most people would be fired for that kind of behaviour, AND subsequently be punished by the courts.

And you're all still missing the point. It's the reason for the suspension which annoys me, not the suspension in itself.

hatrickpatrick · 29-05-2011 09:51PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No-one is saying otherwise in fairness.

!

What is this I don't even...

You've been defending this decision throughout this entire thread. You're about a post away from my ignore / troll list unless you clarify your position, I'm starting to get a hunch that you're just deliberately trying to be irritating without having any logical stance on this whatsoever.

Dyr · 29-05-2011 09:56PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

!
. You're about a post away from my ignore / troll list unless you clarify your position, I'm starting to get a hunch that you're just deliberately trying to be irritating without having any logical stance on this whatsoever.

No shortage of coppers and their families on boards :pac:

AudreyHepburn · 29-05-2011 10:00PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

!

What is this I don't even...

You've been defending this decision throughout this entire thread. You're about a post away from my ignore / troll list unless you clarify your position, I'm starting to get a hunch that you're just deliberately trying to be irritating without having any logical stance on this whatsoever.

Would you ever get off your high horse! I am not trolling as you well know nor was I defending anything.

As I have said I do of course think Foley should be in jail now and obviously the mitigation clause needs to be changed but for now that's thats the law and the judge in the trial was bound by it. Foley was legally entitled to use it if he wished. I am not saying he was right to, only stating the facts.

AudreyHepburn · 29-05-2011 10:00PM

Bambi wrote: »

No shortage of coppers and their families on boards :pac:

I'm neither actually, not that that makes anyone's posts any less valid.

good logs... · 29-05-2011 10:03PM

I dont care what age you are, who are, where you come from, everone is a loud a moment of madness..........

AudreyHepburn · 29-05-2011 10:03PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

LULZ :D:D:D:D:D

Then why are you defending the suspension of the entire sentence based on the man's occupation and nothing more?

Only if he commits another crime. If he remains with a clean record for the duration of the suspension he never pays any penalty whatsoever.

None of those are legal consequences. I'm suggesting that it's the job of the LAW to punish breaking of the LAW.

Most people would be fired for that kind of behaviour, AND subsequently be punished by the courts.

And you're all still missing the point. It's the reason for the suspension which annoys me, not the suspension in itself.

Let's try this again;

Yes we knew what is annoying you and we all agree with you that it was ridiculous.

Again I am defending nothing, just saying as others have that his occupation should not have come into it as regards his sentencing. Unfortunatly the law currently works in Foley's favour.

It is not right but it is law and as you say the law must be upheld.

Lefticus Loonaticus · 29-05-2011 10:08PM

I generally would have little respect for the justice system, but now I dont have any at all.

That judge....... I'd take that hammer out of his hand and beat the head off him if it was a family member of mine that it happened too.

Clearly the guards and judges are just another gang.

hatrickpatrick · 29-05-2011 10:11PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Let's try this again;

Yes we knew what is annoying you and we all agree with you that it was ridiculous.

Again I am defending nothing, just saying as others have that his occupation should not have come into it as regards his sentencing. Unfortunatly the law currently works in Foley's favour.

It is not right but it is law and as you say the law must be upheld.

But you do agree that the law itself is a disgrace and should be changed?

AudreyHepburn · 29-05-2011 10:15PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But you do agree that the law itself is a disgrace and should be changed?

Yes of course. Did I say otherwise?

K-9 · 29-05-2011 10:23PM

Bambi wrote: »

No shortage of coppers and their families on boards :pac:

And the same Gardai bashers on thread after thread!

Paddy De Plasterer · 29-05-2011 10:24PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Yes, but I don't think it's because the Gardai are above the law.

Sentences can be suspended for any number of reasons. Being at a high risk of harm is only one of those reasons

I bet the DPP will appeal this sentence and he will have to serve his 6 months at least.

It's official: Gardai are above the law.

Comments