nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gardai acquitted....

0O7

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0729/gaffneyo.html

blast away

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Einhard

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.

Right then, so next time there's a thread about some ridiculously 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...

MagicSean

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.

But still not evidence of anything that happened inside.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As if that justifies anything other than arresting him?

Never said it did

usernamegoes wrote: »

No the defense said that. No evidence was adduced establishing that fact.

Interesting. I thought the prosecution had introduced it as motive.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Juries are often reminded to reach their decision on facts alone,not on what the social status of the accused and defendants,hence in other cases the juries are not aware of what the accused past convictions are,usually the judges warn juries not to search the net or newspaper archives on the accused.

Einhard

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.

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.

7Sins

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.

Ah right, well no we differ I'm afraid...I'm all for beating the snot out of someone that deserves it. Capital punishment too

sonic85

whether he deserved it or not depends how much of a scumbag he is. some people most definitely deserve the sh!t being kicked out of them. if hes a real lowlife and he gave a member of the force a bad beating then he deserved it and i have no problem with the verdict.

yer man that was arrested for trying to abduct the little girl in offaly is another who could do with a hiding

My name is URL

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:

No, not guilty does not mean innocent.. it means that on the weight of available evidence, the jury made a decision which they felt was most appropriate.

I'd say the verdict will be appealed.. can't see it ending here at all.

lol @ people saying "ah sure he deserved it, he was a scumbag".. what made him a scumbag? Did he go around with a group of people and administer beatings to people in bed while their families were locked in rooms?.. I mean, that's pretty scummy.

The attitude of some people.. and some of them Gardai too.. it's no wonder that there's a growing resentment towards the force as a whole.

FlutterinBantam

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...

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.

MagicSean

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.

I thought the rules of law were intended to promote justice

Big Nasty

Chap was obviously a dirtbag - if they did hit him a few smacks he probably deserved it. I'm glad they were aquitted. Scroates have no fear of the law anymore.

usernamegoes

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

But still not evidence of anything that happened inside.

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.

Interesting. I thought the prosecution had introduced it as motive.

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.

etymon

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.

well, then, if YOU'RE happy, it must be the right attitude. This is a seriously ignorant, Joe-Duffy-moaning kind of self-righteousness that is what is wrong with this moanbag of a country.

Nodin

usernamegoes wrote: »

they pretended they had a warrant.

Really, not sure what the jury was thinking.

'Nice Gardai, Dirty Gurrier'

0O7

My name is URL wrote: »

No, not guilty does not mean innocent.. .

no no, it does mean innocent....

as in innocent until proven guilty etc....

they cant be not guilty and also guilty

MagicSean

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.

Lack of a warrant does not necessarily mean unlawful entry. The only people who could give evidence of what occurred inside were the scumbag whos credibility was low and to a lesser extent his mother, who was locked in the bathroom.

Poor Uncle Tom

Jury have spoken....

It never happend...

7Sins

0O7 wrote: »

no no, it does mean innocent....

as in innocent until proven guilty etc....

they cant be not guilty and also guilty

+1
That's what I thought too, why are the people here so sure the Gardai did it?

My name is URL

0O7 wrote: »

no no, it does mean innocent....

as in innocent until proven guilty etc....

they cant be not guilty and also guilty

You could be right.. pretty sure you are actually =p

I had thought that 'not guilty' really just meant 'not proven', as in whatever charges are brought against someone could not be backed up with evidence, so technically it would also be impossible to prove innocence.

afrodub

The law is there for All of us but in some eyes the Gardai are expected maybe rightfully so to show better example.

I do not agree that disrespecting the authority of the law enforcers promotes any positive example to improve conduct,they are the Guardians of the Peace and a role that many, the vast majority do very well.

archer22

Dempsey wrote: »

Why does it say that several members of the jury were in tears, surely they should be emotionally unaffected by proceedings?

Must have been their Mammies and Daddies that were picked for the jury.They are getting pretty desperate now to keep finding new ways to ensure that all the Gardai coming before the courts get the required not "guilty" verdict.Nothing would surprise me anymore in this decayed rotten little joke nation.

Liamario

Even if they did beat the crap out of him, he probably deserved it.
In any case, reading some of the comments here, guilty even when proven innocent

usernamegoes

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Lack of a warrant does not necessarily mean unlawful entry. The only people who could give evidence of what occurred inside were the scumbag whos credibility was low and to a lesser extent his mother, who was locked in the bathroom.

I know lack of a warrant does not mean unlawful entry but the fake warrant suggests they knew they had no lawful reason to enter e.g. to arrest someone for an arrestable offence.

Indeed, the victim/scumbag's credibility was low. But I think taken with the the other evidence that they seemed to know what they did was at least suspect, lied about it, threatened people not to talk about it, said he needed a few slaps, evidence of his blood on the baton.

They didn't even arrest him.

0O7

imagine if 4 cops go into his house tonight and kick the crap outa him and nobody will believe him....

usernamegoes

0O7 wrote: »

imagine if 4 cops go into his house tonight and kick the crap outa him and nobody will believe him....

He's in jail. Where he should have been if he did have fight with a Garda the night before, instead he gets beaten.

Einhard

7Sins wrote: »

Ah right, well no we differ I'm afraid...I'm all for beating the snot out of someone that deserves it. Capital punishment too

But who decides who deserves the beating or not? The Gardai??

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.

LOL, well sorry, but yours is a fairly warped reality if people who break into the homes of others, and beat the lard out of them are the "good guys"!!

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I thought the rules of law were intended to promote justice

Laws are intended to protect all of society. If we allow the laws to be broken on a selective basis, we put ourselves at risk. Laws, and especially the Constitution, are there as much to protect you and me from the state, as from scumbags.

Liamario wrote: »

Even if they did beat the crap out of him, he probably deserved it.
In any case, reading some of the comments here, guilty even when proven innocent

Oh the frackin irony!! Seriously, post of the day...:rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

7Sins wrote: »

Ah right, well no we differ I'm afraid...I'm all for beating the snot out of someone that deserves it. Capital punishment too

If we must allow this (which I find utterly disgusting) then it must be in a court of law, not because a few Gards say someone did something and are automatically believed. The police force should NEVER be the judge OR the executioner.

amen

They didn't even arrest him.

That to me is the whole point. Doesn't matter if he was a scumbag or not, doesn't matter if was beaten or not.

The Gardai claimed they were there on the basis of a warrant for the victim.
As they lied about that I would have to think everything else from that point on is a Lie.

For the act of falsifing a warrant (or at least making it up) they should be disciplined or removed from the force.

The Gardai are meant to uphold and enforce the law in a transparent manner.

If they can't do this they shouldn't be Gardai.

hatrickpatrick

Liamario wrote: »

Even if they did beat the crap out of him, he probably deserved it.
In any case, reading some of the comments here, guilty even when proven innocent

This irony would actually be funny if it wasn't so disturbing.

0O7

usernamegoes wrote: »

He's in jail. Where he should have been if he did have fight with a Garda the night before, instead he gets beaten.

EDIT :
imagine if 4 [Prison officers] go into his I]cell[/I tonight and kick the crap outa him and nobody will believe him.... :P

Liamario

Einhard wrote:

Oh the frackin irony!! Seriously, post of the day...:rolleyes:

I'm not saying he deserved it. I'm saying there's no smoke without fire. Things like that don't happen to your average joe soap.