Gardai acquitted....

7Sins · 30-07-2011 01:57PM

usernamegoes wrote: »

Let me try to set this out.

You are innocent until proven guilty. The jury's verdict does not find a fact that you definitively didn't commit the crime. They do not declare innocence.

You may in fact be guilty but not enough evidence was adduced so it with be silly for the jury to have to declare you didn't do it even if they are 90 per cent sure. So that's why we all enjoy the presumption of innocence.

And it is a presumption it would be stupid to say everyone is in fact innocent of crimes until they are convicted, that doesn't make sense.

Eh?

goat2 · 30-07-2011 02:05PM

the bolt wrote: »

and batter the ****e out of someone else knowing they will more than likely get off if the posters on here were on jury duty

they did not batter him, he lied, he already had a track record, leopards dont change their spots,

Sofa King Great · 30-07-2011 02:09PM

This Innocent/not guilty thing can be reasoned out quite easily...

A person is deemed INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY

Were the gardai in this case PROVEN GUILTY? No

Therefore if they were not PROVEN GUILY they are INNOCENT.

On the subject of this little scanger, people are forgetting that he had 30 previous convictions. Good enough for the scrote.

It is alleged that on the previous evening he assaulted a member of the Gardai, clearly showing no respect for the role of the Gardai or the Criminal Justice system. However, once he finds himself in the opposite scenario, he is the one going off relying on the Gardai and the Criminal Justice system to protect him.

There are plenty out there with vast numbers of convictions. Clearly these convictions mean nothing to them and have not worked. A bit of a hiding is the only thing they understand.

Itsdacraic · 30-07-2011 02:12PM

Einhard wrote: »

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

It's decided via polls on Boards

usernamegoes · 30-07-2011 02:16PM

7Sins wrote: »

Eh?

You surely can't believe that every person IS IN FACT innocent of crimes until proven guilty. The jury would then be asked of a person guilty of a crime that you say IS IN FACT innocent rather than just presumed to declare he is guilty despite the fact that he is not

That would be a major problem, that would mean that the jury would be revising facts.

Predalien · 30-07-2011 02:17PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

This Innocent/not guilty thing can be reasoned out quite easily...

A person is deemed INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY

Were the gardai in this case PROVEN GUILTY? No

Therefore if they were not PROVEN GUILY they are INNOCENT.

What you are doing there is drawing a logical inference that isn't quite correct, yes everybody is presumed innocent, and yes they were found not guilty but that is not a finding of innocence, sure the presumption of innocence remains but there is no finding of innocence. I can't understand why people can't get their heads round that.

Doublin · 30-07-2011 02:19PM

tayto lover wrote: »

An eye for an eye never works and is never o.k.

I agree, my post was pointing to a situation of lack of faith in the justice system where the police force think they can take things into their own hands in an effort to avenge one of theirs. Now, if people think it's ok for Guards to raid this guy's home & beat the crap out of him & behave like gangsters themselves then eventually you will end up with a scenario of the Rio de Janerio slums etc. where fire is met with fire, running gun battles where everybody(involved or not) has a chance of being hit by a bullet. This guy won't adopt an 'I'm Sorry' meme, more like 'Challenge Accepted' meme.

The Guards did not focus on this guy because he broke the law, they focussed on him because he went for one of their own. So if the Guards feel it is ok to illegally enter a place and seek revenge then maybe they should be disbanded & we go back to the old days of personnal revenge and forget about law & order. After all, if you think the justice system is too harsh/lenient then it is not working for you so take matters into your own hands...

goat2 · 30-07-2011 02:20PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Gardaí in getting away with thuggery shocker, whats the odds the jury were just like the "sure he deserved it" brigade on here.

I'm not surprised.

he has 30 previous convictions, are you trying to put a halo on him,

7Sins · 30-07-2011 02:23PM

usernamegoes wrote: »

You surely can't believe that every person IS IN FACT innocent of crimes until proven guilty. The jury would then be asked to a person guilty of a crime that you say IS IN FACT innocent rather than just presumed.

That would be a major problem, that would mean that the jury would be revising facts.

I'm afraid I do as it is the case. You're innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the prosecution to prove that you're guilty otherwise. Presumed innocence means the accused is innocent unless proven guilty. It's not up to the accused to prove his innocence ever, he is innocent until proven guilty.

It's as simple as that, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, presumed innocence means innocence before a trial and a verdict of not guilty means innocent after the trial.

Or will we all go around in circles again :pac:

Sofa King Great · 30-07-2011 02:25PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Gardaí in getting away with thuggery shocker, whats the odds the jury were just like the "sure he deserved it" brigade on here.

I'm not surprised.

The "sure he deserved it" brigade is generally finely balanced by the "Oh i know he had 30 convictions but sure he was a lovely fella who just had a hard upbringing and was misunderstood" brigade

Predalien · 30-07-2011 02:28PM

7Sins wrote: »

I'm afraid I do as it is the case. You're innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the prosecution to prove that you're guilty otherwise. Presumed innocence means the accused is innocent unless proven guilty. It's not up to the accused to prove his innocence ever, he is innocent until proven guilty.

It's as simple as that, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, presumed innocence means innocence before a trial and a verdict of not guilty means innocent after the trial.

Or will we all go around in circles again :pac:

No it means the presumption has not been rebutted. So it's still presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

usernamegoes · 30-07-2011 02:31PM

7Sins wrote: »

I'm afraid I do as it is the case. You're innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the prosecution to prove that you're guilty otherwise. Presumed innocence means the accused is innocent unless proven guilty. It's not up to the accused to prove his innocence ever, he is innocent until proven guilty.

It's as simple as that, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, presumed innocence means innocence before a trial and a verdict of not guilty means innocent after the trial.

Or will we all go around in circles again :pac:

No, I got all I need from that response. You clearly haven't a grasp on how logic works. You think that the jury have somehow got the power to change history. :rolleyes:

7Sins · 30-07-2011 02:36PM

usernamegoes wrote: »

No, I got all I need from that response. You clearly haven't a grasp on how logic works. You think that the jury have somehow got the power to change history. :rolleyes:

We're you getting that from

If the jury find someone not guilty, they aren't altering the course of history but simply found someone not guilty of a crime. As much as that hurts it means innocent :rolleyes:

7Sins · 30-07-2011 02:37PM

Predalien wrote: »

No it means the presumption has not been rebutted. So it's still presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

Presumed innocence means innocent prior to a verdict. Not guilty is innocent in my eyes after a verdict

Predalien · 30-07-2011 02:37PM

7Sins wrote: »

We're you getting that from If the jury find someone not guilty, they aren't altering the course of history but simply found someone not guilty of a crime. As much as that hurts it means innocent :rolleyes:

So it seems you think people like OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony were all found to be innocent?

Sofa King Great · 30-07-2011 02:39PM

Predalien wrote: »

So it seems you think people like OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony were all found to be innocent?

They are innocent of the charges that were put to them in the court.

7Sins · 30-07-2011 02:40PM

Predalien wrote: »

So it seems you think people like OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony were all found to be innocent?

They were found to be not guilty which means innocent

Predalien · 30-07-2011 02:42PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

They are innocent of the charges that were put to them in the court.

Legally they were found not guilty, there was no finding of innocence. This is seriously going in circles so I'm gonna leave it at that.

usernamegoes · 30-07-2011 02:43PM

7Sins wrote: »

We're you getting that from If the jury find someone not guilty, they aren't altering the course of history but simply found someone not guilty of a crime. As much as that hurts it means innocent :rolleyes:

You said he IS IN FACT innocent i.e. he did not do anything that would constitute a crime UNTIL the jury find him guilty. So logically, if before hand he didn't commit a crime then jury are able to say he did then they are changing facts. That way we say he was presumed not to have done it.

Predalien · 30-07-2011 02:50PM

7Sins wrote: »

They were found to be not guilty which means innocent

Okay one last one, you actually think not guilty means innocent?

Hedman · 30-07-2011 02:58PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

The "sure he deserved it" brigade is generally finely balanced by the "Oh i know he had 30 convictions but sure he was a lovely fella who just had a hard upbringing and was misunderstood" brigade

I honestly haven't seen one person try to make that argument. There's a big difference between people saying the Gardaí should obey the same law they are there to uphold and defending what the little scumbag did.

7Sins · 30-07-2011 03:02PM

[

Predalien wrote: »

Okay one last one, you actually think not guilty means innocent?

What I think is: If you're innocent until proven guilty and if you're found not guilty you're still 100% innocent. Everyone is always innocent until proven guilty and if not proven guilty then they remain innocent.

aftermn · 30-07-2011 03:07PM

What about the conduct of the trial?
Do not both prosecution and defence have counsels? Could it be that one or other didn't do a great job? What right of entry did the defence rely upon? Was the alleged assault the night before relevent to the entry? If so why was it not explored more thoroughly?

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a tough standard to reach. We have all seen cases where it appeared guilt was a foregone conclusion, only to see a not guilty verdict emerge. Guilty people do get off sometimes. It is our system, imperfect maybe, but ours. We give the power of decision on guilt to this system, we should either accept what it finds or seek to change the system. Moaning about individual cases is pointless.

JEINKINS12 · 30-07-2011 03:08PM

end a eknny wrote: »

and here was me thinking that being proven innocent may just mean that there isnt enough evidence to convict. if i killed my wife but there is not enough evidence to convict that doesnt mean i didnt do it. take joe o reilly for example he killed his wife but there wasnt enough evidence. hold on he might be a bad example. just thinking the only mistake he made was not joining the gardai 6 months before he killed her he would still be free now

Exquease me..Joe O'Reilly is serving life for murder, he did it and was found guilty.

EarlERizer · 30-07-2011 03:09PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

This Innocent/not guilty thing can be reasoned out quite easily...

A person is deemed INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY

Were the gardai in this case PROVEN GUILTY? No

Therefore if they were not PROVEN GUILY they are INNOCENT.

On the subject of this little scanger, people are forgetting that he had 30 previous convictions. Good enough for the scrote.

It is alleged that on the previous evening he assaulted a member of the Gardai, clearly showing no respect for the role of the Gardai or the Criminal Justice system. However, once he finds himself in the opposite scenario, he is the one going off relying on the Gardai and the Criminal Justice system to protect him.

There are plenty out there with vast numbers of convictions. Clearly these convictions mean nothing to them and have not worked. A bit of a hiding is the only thing they understand.

Well done on your reasoning of Innocence & Guilt, although your finishing paragraphs have really let you down or maybe not,maybe just shown you up for what you are.

One 'scrote' ALLEGEDLY assaults a garda,the civilised,proper and justifiable response to that is for a gang of gardai to go visit the (alleged) offender and kick the sweet bejaysus out of him whilst one (or two) restrain his mother from her most maternal instinct of protecting her child.

It's sick! regardless of wheter he was a little sh!t and deserved a slap or two,those uniformed scumbags where,are & always will be out of order,what they did just makes them the same as a thug in the street,no different from 'scrotes' like the victim in this case.

p.s.
I think you'll find that they were actually proven 'guily' they gave him a good hiding full of vigour and guile

JEINKINS12 · 30-07-2011 03:10PM

end a eknny wrote: »

i agree if the gardai ever come to my house i will lock the door and retreat upstairs with a loaded shotgun. you just cant let these scum go around making up there own laws

Hope that shotgun is licensed or you'll be breaking the law.

Sofa King Great · 30-07-2011 03:44PM

EarlERizer wrote: »

Well done on your reasoning of Innocence & Guilt, although your finishing paragraphs have really let you down or maybe not,maybe just shown you up for what you are.

One 'scrote' ALLEGEDLY assaults a garda,the civilised,proper and justifiable response to that is for a gang of gardai to go visit the (alleged) offender and kick the sweet bejaysus out of him whilst one (or two) restrain his mother from her most maternal instinct of protecting her child.

It's sick! regardless of wheter he was a little sh!t and deserved a slap or two,those uniformed scumbags where,are & always will be out of order,what they did just makes them the same as a thug in the street,no different from 'scrotes' like the victim in this case.

p.s.
I think you'll find that they were actually proven 'guily' they gave him a good hiding full of vigour and guile

I feel the use of the term scrote for a person with 30 convictions who steals a car from a nun to be entirely justified.

I also entirely stand by my view point that there are plenty of scumbags in cities, towns and villages around the country that only respond to a few slaps. The Gardai are there to protect civilised members of society, and if to do that they need to give out a few digs then so be it.

I will sleep soundly in the knowledge that the gardai arent going to enter my house and beat me up because I will not do something which results in the me being on the Gards radar.

Anyone who continues to break the law after 30 previous convictions revokes their right to be treated with the respect that law abiding people like you and I have earned.

the bolt · 30-07-2011 04:10PM

charlemont wrote: »

The bloke bought it on himself, He was acting the big man and he got a beating for it, Those Guards were dead right, They were obviously pissed off about their fellow Guard being assaulted, It could have been worse, The Guards could have claimed he and his mother assaulted them in the house and the Guards could have brought them up for assault. I bet he is the kind of bloke that would call you or I a "Rat" if we brought him up for assault.

he brought it on himself by laying in his bed in his room.some people on this thread deserve to have a run in with those fine upstanding members of the gardai

CiaranC · 30-07-2011 04:11PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

I feel the use of the term scrote for a person with 30 convictions who steals a car from a nun to be entirely justified.

I also entirely stand by my view point that there are plenty of scumbags in cities, towns and villages around the country that only respond to a few slaps. The Gardai are there to protect civilised members of society, and if to do that they need to give out a few digs then so be it.

I will sleep soundly in the knowledge that the gardai arent going to enter my house and beat me up because I will not do something which results in the me being on the Gards radar.

Anyone who continues to break the law after 30 previous convictions revokes their right to be treated with the respect that law abiding people like you and I have earned.

What you are describing is a fascist state.

EarlERizer · 30-07-2011 04:16PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

I feel the use of the term scrote for a person with 30 convictions who steals a car from a nun to be entirely justified.

I also entirely stand by my view point that there are plenty of scumbags in cities, towns and villages around the country that only respond to a few slaps. The Gardai are there to protect civilised members of society, and if to do that they need to give out a few digs then so be it.

I will sleep soundly in the knowledge that the gardai arent going to enter my house and beat me up because I will not do something which results in the me being on the Gards radar.

Anyone who continues to break the law after 30 previous convictions revokes their right to be treated with the respect that law abiding people like you and I have earned.

I was never questioning your use of the word 'scrote' , it's not one I would use, I use the term 'toe rag' and other less polite terms from time to time.

Good man ,your right to stand by your viewpoint, you'd only look silly if you didn't stand by your view on things.

Do you not see it though? when you read over things, do you not see the contradiction in your posts? you profess to live a wholesome law abiding existance and are prepared to turn a blind eye to certain acts of uncivilised behaviour & violence so long as it's been dished out at the hands of a (supposed) protector of law & order in the name of law & order or worse justice?

Where's the civility in that? violence is violence regardless of wheter it is been committed by a 'scrote/toe rag' or a uniformed member of the gardai!

Your right,anyone who continues to break the law deserves no respect,respect is not something that should be given freely,it is earned,earned by our actions and how we conduct ourselves,the same rule applies to everyone! The gardai are bound by the law just the same as everyone else.

p.s. Don't sleep too soundly,they've been known to get things wrong from time to time!

Gardai acquitted....

Comments