Garda with no licience,tax, and bald tyres kills two and gets a fine!

hondasam · 19-04-2012 09:32PM

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I just heard that the guard's solicitor said he "had been on late duty for a number of days prior to this incident, and that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car"

Was he so tired (having worked late duty) that he forgot that he didnt have a license??? Intended going to a dealer, for a car he didnt have a license for? .. was he gonna get somebody else to drive his car to the dealer? Strange statements from the defence, the aim of which I presume was to highlight "mitigating circumstances"

Johnny, he know's he was wrong we know he was wrong but it happened. I think we have all concentrated on him and completely ignored the ftwo men who died.
They should not have been in the middle of the road that night but neither did they deserve to die.
There is a lot of people at fault here, the guard should uphold the law he enforces.

pjmn · 19-04-2012 09:33PM

Couldn't give a toss what his occupation is - but for killing two people, having no licence, no tax and two bald tyres, E900 doesn't seem a fit punishment for the crime...

JonathanAnon · 19-04-2012 09:34PM

hondasam wrote: »

Johnny, he know's he was wrong we know he was wrong but it happened. I think we have all concentrated on him and completely ignored the ftwo men who died.

Hey Sam... I was really just confused as to what the solicitor meant, seems like a very silly statement to come out with...

finty · 19-04-2012 09:35PM

thebullkf wrote: »

Having baldy tyres,no licence , no tax.... you say he's not at fault

he broke the law he (allegedly) upholds. Can you say he didn't...????

He is at fault for breaking road traffic laws and was convicted as such.

He isnt at fault for the deaths of two morons getting themselves killed by lying on a motorway in the dead of night

_feedback_ · 19-04-2012 09:35PM

thebullkf wrote: »

no, take it away cos he drove illegally, and killed two people.

the arguement that"someone else would've done it, if not him" is bolloxology.

Applying that logic to theft=Sure if i don't steal that telly/wallet/<insert other> someone else will...right?

Fact is he drove on tyres he'd not allow anyone else drive on (legally) , he drove without a licence, something else he wouldn't (legally) let someone away with.

I fail to see the logic of the strong support for the garda tbh...

I'm not in any way questioning that he shouldn't have been driving the car.

But, he broke the law and drove the car. He was fined for that.

He hit two dopes rolling around on a bloody motorway. It is just madness to say it is his fault, when the limited information we have says the opposite.

K-9 · 19-04-2012 09:36PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

he is guilty of manslaughter

Doubt it:

In R v Adomako the House of Lords affirmed R v Bateman, and set out the five elements required for negligence:
A duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim.
A breach of that duty.
A risk that the defendant's conduct could cause death.[23]
Evidence that the breach of duty caused the victim's death.
The defendant fell so far below the standards of the reasonable man in that situation that he should be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#English_law_3

Very debatable, never mind the 2 men fighting in the middle of a motorway!

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 09:36PM

pjmn wrote: »

Couldn't give a toss what his occupation is - but for killing two people, having no licence, no tax and two bald tyres, E900 doesn't seem a fit punishment for the crime...

Ok what do you think is a fit punishment for

1. No license
2. No tax
3. 2 bald tyres
4. Killing 2 people in a car accident where there is no proof of negligence in relation to that incident.

pjmn · 19-04-2012 09:37PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Ok what do you think is a fit punishment for

1. No license
2. No tax
3. 2 bald tyres
4. Killing 2 people in a car accident where there is no proof of negligence in relation to that incident.

10 years off the road!

marco_polo · 19-04-2012 09:37PM

lividduck wrote: »

marco_polo wrote: »

You can be charged with dangerous driving causing death if the condition of the vehicle is a major factor in a fatal accident. As he wasn't charged with such an offense, it

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/death-crash-driver-avoids-jail-sentence-2613090.html

is not unreasonable to conclude that the condition of the tyres was not a factor or to conclude that being a copper means you get away lighter than anyone else!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0314/keysk.html

lividduck · 19-04-2012 09:38PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes he broke the law, he was brought before a court to answer for breaking the law. He pleaded guilty and was punished as any citizen of the country would be in the same circumstances. Now if anyone is saying that in a republic it is ok to punish people harder because of the job they do is that not as bad as saying people should be treated lighter because of the job they do.

The gardai persistantly demand that those who attack , assault them should be treated harsher than if they attacked/assaulted an ordinary citizen. If the Gardai believe that they are entitled to special status within society then surely society has the right to expect that when Gardai wilfully break the law they should also be held to higher standard.

hondasam · 19-04-2012 09:38PM

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Hey Sam... I was really just confused as to what the solicitor meant, seems like a very silly statement to come out with...

I agree with you, he was just trying to make it sound better I guess. we will probably never know if he had a d/lic, how long the tax was out or how bald the tyres were. He worked in Limerick and lived in cork, I dunno how far he was travelling every day. There is no excuse really I suppose.

JonathanAnon · 19-04-2012 09:41PM

Terrontress wrote: »

I'd have thought pleading ignorance as to the state of the car would be better than admitting full knowledge of the safety issues and acknowledging not having rectified them.

Yeah that's what I mean about it being odd... It's kind of self incriminating.. And when they say "that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car" it kind of implies that he didnt necessarily see anything wrong with driving without a license.

_feedback_ · 19-04-2012 09:41PM

marco_polo wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0314/keysk.html

I don't get what point you are trying to make with that link?

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 09:41PM

pjmn wrote: »

10 years off the road!

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

team2 · 19-04-2012 09:43PM

pjmn wrote: »

Couldn't give a toss what his occupation is - but for killing two people, having no licence, no tax and two bald tyres, E900 doesn't seem a fit punishment for the crime...

What crime did the guard commit, fact he didn't commit a crime, he committed some driving offences, and 900 is a fairly steep fine for those offences

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 09:43PM

lividduck wrote: »

The gardai persistantly demand that those who attack , assault them should be treated harsher than if they attacked/assaulted an ordinary citizen. If the Gardai believe that they are entitled to special status within society then surely society has the right to expect that when Gardai wilfully break the law they should also be held to higher standard.

That is equally as wrong an assault is an assault end of in my opinion. But in any case that does not treat the criminal differently because of his status it treats the criminal differently because the crime may be considered different.

It's a bit like a judge I heard about before used to give harsher sentences to people who robbed cheap old cars, his logic is a guy with a banger would have less money and more than likely only third party insurance so the loss to him would be way more than the new car owner with full insurance, again the difference is not based on the criminal but the effect of the crime.

marco_polo · 19-04-2012 09:48PM

elviscostello wrote: »

marco_polo wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0314/keysk.html

I don't get what point you are trying to make with that link?

Clearly that being a guard doesn't get you any special treatment in a court of Law.

pjmn · 19-04-2012 09:50PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

a) Where did I ever say I never broke a law? You might point out that to me....

b) have I crossed a road close to a crossing - haven't a clue what that means...

c) Yes - I carry my licence at all times...

d) Checked tyre threads last weekend (they are fine), back ones will need replacing before front ones, but it is a rear wheel drive car...

e) Brake fluid and lights were all checked at last months service... (and were fine)...

f) have never driven anyone else's car - I'm not insured to...

Hope that clarifies your queries, albeit I am still not sure what it has to do with someone who has killed two people, had no driving licence, no car tax and was driving on two bald tyres... :rolleyes:

HigginsJ · 19-04-2012 09:51PM

withless wrote: »

2 people get out of a car to have a fight on a motorway and get hit by an officer of the law with no drivers license in a car that is not roadworthy who is then fined 900 euro by a judge.

Typical.

typical, that people see a garda is in an incident and automatically assume that its a big conspiracy and he wont face the consequences

_feedback_ · 19-04-2012 09:54PM

The more I read this thread, the more I feel sorry for this guy. He will be forever named as the guy who "killed" two people, by a lot of people who can't see past the fact that he made a couple of bad decisions but committed no big crime ...

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 09:54PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes he broke the law, he was brought before a court to answer for breaking the law. He pleaded guilty and was punished as any citizen of the country would be in the same circumstances. Now if anyone is saying that in a republic it is ok to punish people harder because of the job they do is that not as bad as saying people should be treated lighter because of the job they do.

depends on the job-if you are an upkeeper of the law, you should be treated harsher when you break it- there is a small minority in every sector who become arrogant/flippant about breaking the rules they enforce-"do as i say, not as i do" , he also received a sentence that is light- do you believe otherwise?

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 09:56PM

pjmn wrote: »

a) Where did I ever say I never broke a law? You might point out that to me....

b) have I crossed a road close to a crossing - haven't a clue what that means...

c) Yes - I carry my licence at all times...

d) Checked tyre threads last weekend (they are fine), back ones will need replacing before front ones, but it is a rear wheel drive car...

e) Brake fluid and lights were all checked at last months service... (and were fine)...

f) have never driven anyone else's car - I'm not insured to...

Hope that clarifies your queries, albeit I am still not sure what it has to do with someone has killed two people, had no driving licence, no car tax and was driving on two bald tyres... :rolleyes:

Because its an offense to cross the road in the vicinity of a designated crossing point, but not at the designated point, you would not think so in this country.

The reason I asked you the other questions is I personally think a 10 year driving ban for a first offense in this case would be too harsh, and that while you may be a perfect driver who has never done wrong and thankfully never been the cause of a serious crash, most people are fallible and punishment should reflect the crime, the charges and evidence before the court.

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 09:57PM

finty wrote: »

He is at fault for breaking road traffic laws and was convicted as such.

He isnt at fault for the deaths of two morons getting themselves killed by lying on a motorway in the dead of night

eh- i think you'll find he was...ffs HE killed them, sure blame is apportioned to them- but they paid for their folly- this garda has got off lightly.

HigginsJ · 19-04-2012 09:57PM

thebullkf wrote: »

depends on the job-if you are an upkeeper of the law, you should be treated harsher when you break it- there is a small minority in every sector who become arrogant/flippant about breaking the rules they enforce-"do as i say, not as i do" , he also received a sentence that is light- do you believe otherwise?

Going on the fine he got and the fine that was issued in the cases that were linked up on this thread he was fined at the higher end of the scale for the tyres, tax and licence.

Milk & Honey · 19-04-2012 09:58PM

leeroybrown wrote: »

This happened on a motorway not a tiny bohreen. Motorway designated roads are supposed to be designed to allow drivers achieve the designated speed limit day or night without the risks associated with blind junctions, roadside obstructions, pedestrians, cyclists, agricultural vehicles, etc.

Technically the ban is applied from when you next receive a license. At that point it's endorsed and you lose it for the period of the ban.

The ban happens 14 days after the district court order, unless appealed. The licence is supposed to be handed in.

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 09:59PM

thebullkf wrote: »

depends on the job-if you are an upkeeper of the law, you should be treated harsher when you break it- there is a small minority in every sector who become arrogant/flippant about breaking the rules they enforce-"do as i say, not as i do" , he also received a sentence that is light- do you believe otherwise?

The sentence must be looked at in relation to others charged with the same then no it's not light in my opinion it's at the higher end of what is usually given. Do I think it was right ya prob for the charges before the court. If he had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving death, if that charge was before the court, then a ban would have been given. But on what little I know I really don't think dangerous driving or even careless driving would have stood up.

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 10:01PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, (i have, but never killed anyone)

for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing.(yes-almost killed-once!)
If you drive do you carry your license at all times. (Yes)
If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working.(weekly check)
Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC. (always)

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

hows about yourself there?

HigginsJ · 19-04-2012 10:03PM

thebullkf wrote: »

eh- i think you'll find he was...ffs HE killed them, sure blame is apportioned to them- but they paid for their folly- this garda has got off lightly.

How did he get off lightly.

What would you do with the man. He killed 2 people, unitentionally and under circumstances outside of his control and if he is a decent human being (i imagine gardai can be) then i am sure an extremely difficult situation for him to cope with.

He cant be charged/prosecuted for that.

He is still open to internal disciplinary action, but to hang a man for a terrible accident is unfair.

withless · 19-04-2012 10:04PM

HigginsJ wrote: »

typical, that people see a garda is in an incident and automatically assume that its a big conspiracy and he wont face the consequences

You 'automatically assumed' that is what I meant.

I 'automatically assume' you left school when you were 8 by the standard of English in your post.

It was more a general comment on the quality of the populace of our great nation.

pjmn · 19-04-2012 10:04PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Because its an offense to cross the road in the vicinity of a designated crossing point, but not at the designated point, you would not think so in this country.

The reason I asked you the other questions is I personally think a 10 year driving ban for a first offense in this case would be too harsh, and that while you may be a perfect driver who has never done wrong and thankfully never been the cause of a serious crash, most people are fallible and punishment should reflect the crime, the charges and evidence before the court.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion (as I am to mine) - but my view is that anyone who is over the age of 18 (i.e. should know right from wrong) who takes a car that is not in a roadworthy condition, does not have a driving licence to drive same and the said car is not taxed then I think 10 years off the road is an appropriate punishment, and in turn it might just stop the next guy doing the same...

... finally, I think you should drop the 'perfect driver' comments, you don't know me, and it makes your comments look a little childish/foolish.

Garda with no licience,tax, and bald tyres kills two and gets a fine!

Comments