0O7 wrote: » no no, it does mean innocent.... as in innocent until proven guilty etc.... they cant be not guilty and also guilty
usernamegoes wrote: » Not sure why it matters for this purpose that they didn't see what happened inside. Other testimony was given as to what occurred inside. The Student Garda gave some evidence on circumstances like faking a warrant etc, i.e. they accused knew they were not entering the house under lawful means. But their evidence was directed at the showing that it was not a legitimate police operation. No the prosecution kept making it clear that no evidence established the victim was in such a fight the night before. TBH, I'd say he was.
My name is URL wrote: » No, not guilty does not mean innocent.. .
usernamegoes wrote: » they pretended they had a warrant. Really, not sure what the jury was thinking.
FlutterinBantam wrote: » Nah mate, I deal in reality. The bleeding heart brigade here were slavering in anticipation of a conviction, but the jurors, god bless them, had a bit of sense. Sometimes the good guy wins;) As far as I am concerned, justice was done.
Seanbeag1 wrote: » But still not evidence of anything that happened inside.
Interesting. I thought the prosecution had introduced it as motive.
Einhard wrote: » Are you serious? Those rigid rules of law are there to protect everyone from arbitrary imposition by the state, and the arms of the state. There are good reasons why the Gardai can't just decide to break the laws they are supposed to uphold, and there's nothign academic about them. The idea that laws are subjective, that some people can ignore them by dint of the fact that they wear a uniform is seriously dumb.
Einhard wrote: » Right then, so next time there's a thread about some reidiculously light sentence for murder or rape, I'll wait for you to turn up with "Justice done and seen to be done, get over it". I mean, such is your obvious respect for our infallible justice system, I presume you apply that mantra to all cases...
7Sins wrote: » I don't want to appear like an "uncool" cat now by not bashing the gardai but if they were found not guilty by a jury, doesn't that mean they were innocent and that the little scobie sh*t was lying :pac:
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I'm referring to all the people here who are saying "he deserved it". NO ONE EVER deserves to be treated that way. Regardless fo whether it actually happened, it absolutely sickens me to see people advocating violent assault on any human being.
Rawhead wrote: » There are times when people see beyond the rigid rules of law as practiced by the academics. The jury obviously realised that the little scrote got what was coming to him and rightly acquitted the accused.
usernamegoes wrote: » Indeed, but were told by the accused if they mentioned what happened to anyone they would be convicted of being accomplices and lose their jobs and go to jail. So they weren't testifying to the events in the room.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » As if that justifies anything other than arresting him?
usernamegoes wrote: » No the defense said that. No evidence was adduced establishing that fact.
FlutterinBantam wrote: » Like a lot of other cases, we would love to hear the 'reasoning'. Justice done and seen to be done, get over it. Good call jury.
Bosco boy wrote: » If it's any consolation they are guilty on boards.ie where all is perfect and the cream of society pass judgement behind closed doors and pulled curtains. The jury were 12 of your own, they weren't gardai. Pass judgement when you know the facts of the case, hold back on your predjuices in the meantime!
Seanbeag1 wrote: » I believe the prosecutions case was that he had badly assaulted one of the Gardaí the night before.
Seanbeag1 wrote: » The students were outside the whole time. They didn't see anything that happened inside.
usernamegoes wrote: » I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting, that the verdict of the jury should be substituted for theirs but as a person that sat in the court every day (I am a law graduate, and attend courts to observe and learn, in case you think I went because I had a bias) I listen to the evidence, albeit I did hear evidence not put to the jury, but frankly that wasn't very useful anyway, and when the jury came back not guilty on any of the charges I couldn't believe it. I would love to hear the reasoning they had is all.
Bowlardo wrote: » What was the reason for garda beating up the "scumbad" what was he have meant to have done?
Richard tea wrote: » Not aware of the case but I agree.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Surely to God anyone knows that beating the sh*t out of someone while restraining others from helping them is ALWAYS wrong?
