Gardai acquitted....

goat2 wrote: »

if one of my youngsters had half the convictions, it would be my wish that someone would slap a bit of sense into him, i am sure they were only trying to help the mother, what did she say about this, also is she happy with his conduct,

Well, the 'slaps' he got didn't work did they? He went onto commit more crimes. Perhaps, if he was arrested, charged, and convicted in accordance with the law we'd all be safer and have saved €500,000 in legal costs.

Crackle wrote: »

The gang of gardai ALLEGEDLY visited the (alleged) offender and "kicked the sweet bejaysus out of him."

P.S. They were tried for it and found not guilty btw

:rolleyes: oh dear.

It is documented as FACT that the 'gardai' did indeed,with force,enter the abode of the victim without a search or arrest warrant and proceeded to give him a hiding resulting in injuries to the victim. These are FACTS not allegations,the defending gardai dont deny they entered the house or using force against the victim.

They went on trial and got off ,doesn't make them innocent of the crime, now come on, I'll hazzard a guess at you been intelligent enough to understand that? or do you believe that all those who are found "not guilty" are indeed innocent of the charges they stood trial for?

p.s. no need for capitals when writing a post script,it's just an after thought

Corbin Curved Roundworm wrote: »

This;



And a LOT of this



God be with the days a scumbag took his beating and straightened himself/herself out - bleed'n cry baby IMO.

Little pox bottle;

Aren't you a member of the PDF who has been stationed in the Leb? A UN peacekeeping force.. And you are fine about some lad being attacked while in bed by the authorities. Can imagine that you jumped onto the bandwagon of who is good & who is bad pretty easily & shot accordingly in the Leb..

We should get you back here & post you in Talbot St., adopt the same attitude and take out anyone you don't like.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Neither does it make them guilty of one.

Just to humour you :rolleyes:

Thats right in this case ........they got off! neither a victory for justice or law,merely just another case of someone "getting away with it".

sonic85 wrote: »

and a stint in jail with other like minded thugs plus tv, hot food and a roof over his head will definitely turn him off committing further crimes? rrrrrrrriiiiiiiight

Dont know,might not be too nice in there...I notice all the big "tough" gardai faced with even the very remote prospect of ending up there turn into whimpering little girls....little Shirley Templemores .

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

If you notice I was talking about the alleged victim....so glad you agree! You should read posts more carefully before responding.

RichieC wrote: »

one law for us another for scum, yay! maybe we can even make it slide further so union workers and socialists can get the scum law applied to them!

I really want to live in a state like that.

If somebody chooses to continually live outside the common principles of our society then they do not deserve to benefit from the protection that society provides to the people who contribute to it. As I said before, you must earn your rights. You can't have your cake and eat it.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think we need to step back and look at this logically.

The jury found the Gardai not guilty of the charges against them, which means there must have been something that put sufficant doubt in their minds as to what happened.

I think it is safe to say we probably don't know the full facts of the case and that jury are privy to information the general public are not.

So, in the eyes of the law, the Gardai are innocent.

It is not that difficult to understand so I can't why people are struggling with it.

I think we need to step back and look at this logically.

The verdict does seem to defeat all logic and warp established notions of what is right and that which is wrong.

12 of the accuseds "Peers" (ie. true peers - all named Anto who somehow found themselves registered to vote etc.) delivered a judgement so sound that they cried (?)

The 12 Jurors couldn't all have been locked in the Court Bathroom - Cause then there would have been nobody to beat up - I'd guess that they locked them up in 3 groups of 4 or similar.

I'd say whoever got to reason with them was almost defintiely on the verge of obtaining offical paperwork granting them permission to "talk" to the Jury and "convince" them to play ball.

I doubt they actually imprisoned they Jurors Mothers - Now thats just being silly..... I'd say they probably just threatened to!!!

EarlERizer wrote: »

It would be interesting to hear from you if ever one of them does go down the wrong path and you find yourself in a situation like the one this mother was in.I dont care how 'bad' a child can turn out as it's parent you would not tolerate them been battered by a gang of any discription.

I think one distorted area in all this is the severity of the attack on the victim.There are those who believe it to have been "a few slaps" and those who believe it was a "severe hiding"
So,what is "a few slaps"? and when does a few slaps turn into a hiding? where is the line crossed?

We as parents,the responsibility is with us & our partners to dicipline our children,it starts from the time they are born,instilling values in them as they grow,not waiting for them to grow up to be little sh!ts and then wanting someone else to put them right!

not bragging here, but dont worry they will not cause other people harm, as a matter of fact they are helpful generous and kind, it is the way i brought them up, and yes they were told there would be severe consequences if they decided to take the wrong path, i did not work hard to have them well educated and using the time i was off with them, to end up with thugs, as i saw it then and still see it, we reap what we sew.
so i am wondering how his parents reacted to all of this,
everything is learned at home, where there should be boundaries

mconigol wrote: »

If somebody chooses to continually live outside the common principles of our society then they do not deserve to benefit from the protection that society provides to the people who contribute to it. As I said before, you must earn your rights. You can't have your cake and eat it.

A society in which the police force choose to be judge & jury reflects fascist undertones,I choose whole heartedly to live outside of that thank you very much.

When the law enforcement of any society lower themselves to the standard of common thugs and the general public accept it,it sullies the term "civilised society".

If your principles allow you to turn a blind eye to vigilanteism then your principles are somewhat distorted.

p.s. It has been proven time & again that there are those who indeed can have their cake & eat it!

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

spoken like someone who has had the gardai at thier door a time or two before.....so tell us, were they heavy handed with you too??
Personally speaking, Ive never brought the gardai to my parents door, or I can tell ye this, it wouldnt have been them giving me the "hiding", they would have had to pull my parents off me, the first time. But then, I was brought up properly, my parents understood that kids no matter how innocent they may seem at home, can go off the rails, and they disciplined accordingly

the bolt wrote: »

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

Again, am definately getting a sense of "sack of spuds on the shoulder", Ive always found the gardai to be extremely nice and helpful, but then, I never went around robbing cars or beating people up....could there be a link there I wonder :rolleyes:

EarlERizer wrote: »

I think one distorted area in all this is the severity of the attack on the victim.There are those who believe it to have been "a few slaps" and those who believe it was a "severe hiding"
So,what is "a few slaps"? and when does a few slaps turn into a hiding? where is the line crossed?

We as parents,the responsibility is with us & our partners to dicipline our children,it starts from the time they are born,instilling values in them as they grow,not waiting for them to grow up to be little sh!ts and then wanting someone else to put them right!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/gardai-locked-my-mum-in-bathroom-and-then-beat-me-2808222.html

Doctors later noted a bruise on Mr Gaffney's head, swelling to his nose which had been bleeding, bruising to the front and back of his upper body and a superficial laceration on his right upper arm when he arrived at St James's Hospital.


Hardly a severe hiding, he was aggresive towards the gardai, and I seriously doubt his mother stood there quietly, or asked them reasonably to leave her son alone. She was most likely hurling abuse at them too, doesnt take a genius to figure out she was hardly mother of the year. Lokk at the cat, look at the kittens

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Look, will you get over it buddy.

Guards were acquitted by a jury ,end of story, justice done.

Why don't you people direct your attention to some of the scrotes who patrol this town robbing and mugging people.

the taxpayer is being bled dry by these wasters but you people decide to champion their cause??

No time for that bleeding heart crappage.:mad:

couldnt agree more. Its all bleeding hearts until you're at the mercy of a little sh(t like this whos terrorising you, your kids and half the neighbourhood

Raiser wrote: »

I think we need to step back and look at this logically.

The verdict does seem to defeat all logic and warp established notions of what is right and that which is wrong.

12 of the accuseds "Peers" (ie. true peers - all named Anto who somehow found themselves registered to vote etc.) delivered a judgement so sound that they cried (?)

The 12 Jurors couldn't all have been locked in the Court Bathroom - Cause then there would have been nobody to beat up - I'd guess that they locked them up in 3 groups of 4 or similar.

I'd say whoever got to reason with them was almost defintiely on the verge of obtaining offical paperwork granting them permission to "talk" to the Jury and "convince" them to play ball.

I doubt they actually imprisoned they Jurors Mothers - Now thats just being silly..... I'd say they probably just threatened to!!!

Eh I think you completely defeated your point that I highlighted above with the rest of the drivvel you posted. Is that good LSD

EarlERizer wrote: »

I'm not making any suggestions whatsoever,you can stop with that angle for starters!

I'm stating that in the practice of law not all the facts are submitted,both sides will submit facts they consider best serves their side of the story in order to strenghten their case, both hoping what comes of it will benefit them.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a surprise if ever they find themselves in the position of going to court with a case,be it to prosecute or defend.

Yes indeed, which is why he failed to mention to the garda ombudsman that he had 27 prior convictions, the first in a long line of lies, and omissions


Any one want to take bets on how long it will be before hes back in the papers having commited yet another crime ????? Any takers, I'd say before xmas

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Anyone other than those in court? Or are you suggesting that both the defense and prosecution agreed to cover up certain things?

Of course the jury didn't hear all of the facts, and rightly so, as some may not be reliable, and several times during the trial voir dire was called to exclude potions of proposed testimony.

I sat in the Court each day, and admittedly, heard some evidence that the jury didn't, but it wasn't really that important. I came to a different conclusion than the jury.

The went away to deliberate for 5 hours on a Friday, were called back in at 4pm and asked if they had considered all the counts and reached unanimous verdict on any. The answered no to both questions. So at that point the judge couldn't instruct them on majority verdict as they hadn't even considered all the counts.

Then 2 hours later they arrive back and deliver their verdict.