tayto lover wrote: » What I meant was if a garda is convicted of drunk driving does he automatically lose his job?
MadDog76 wrote: » Is that a serious question??? If he's found guilty of drink driving, smashing into two vehicles and fleeing the scene you wonder if he'll be allowed to continue being an Officer of the Law!?!
tayto lover wrote: » If he is found guilty in court does he lose his job too? Just asking as I have been told it happened previously to another garda.
Potential-Monke wrote: » I dream of a world where people base their views on facts... Re"guard"less (ba-dum-tish) of whether the 3rd driver fled the scene or not, he was arrested. Back at the station, he would have been given the opportunity to give a breath sample. Failure or refusal results in a charge. If, on medical grounds, he could not provide a breath sample, he is given the opportunity to provide a urine or blood sample. Failure or refusal is a charge. Now, due to the situation, i'd imagine a file is being prepared, and that is why he was released without charge. It's not just a simple case of charging someone with drink driving (over, failure or refusal), statements would need to be made, cctv checked, PSV reports awaited, etc. It will take a few months i'd imagine to get everything together. Then, a file will be sent to the DPP (either by GSOC or AGS, or both) and once the DPP's decision has been made, and if it's to proceed with anything, then that person can be rearrested for the purpose of charge, or summons can be issued. This is a common, every day process that thousands go through. Not everyone is charge when they are arrested, especially so where there are other factors to consider, as there are in this case. The problem with charging someone, is that due to court rulings, there is a small window of time to get all the evidence together to give to the defence solicitor. If it goes over this time-frame (42 days), the case will either fall or anything not included may not be allowed to be included on the day. Releasing someone without charge gives AGS 6 or more months to get everything together. And for those saying that the Gardaí are still like those in the 90's. No, they are definitely not. Yes, there are some Gardaí who are attempting to cling onto the "good days", but between GSOC, social media and cameras, those days are very close to being well and truly numbered.
Potential-Monke wrote: » I dream of a world where people base their views on facts... Re"guard"less (ba-dum-tish) of whether the 3rd driver fled the scene or not, he was arrested. Back at the station, he would have been given the opportunity to give a breath sample. Failure or refusal results in a charge. If, on medical grounds, he could not provide a breath sample, he is given the opportunity to provide a urine or blood sample. Failure or refusal is a charge. Now, due to the situation, i'd imagine a file is being prepared, and that is why he was released without charge. It's not just a simple case of charging someone with drink driving (over, failure or refusal), statements would need to be made, cctv checked, PSV reports awaited, etc. It will take a few months i'd imagine to get everything together. Then, a file will be sent to the DPP (either by GSOC or AGS, or both) and once the DPP's decision has been made, and if it's to proceed with anything, then that person can be rearrested for the purpose of charge, or summons can be issued. This is a common, every day process that thousands go through. Not everyone is charge when they are arrested, especially so where there are other factors to consider, as there are in this case. The problem with charging someone, is that due to court rulings, there is a small window of time to get all the evidence together to give to the defence solicitor. If it goes over this time-frame (42 days), the case will either fall or anything not included may not be allowed to be included on the day. Releasing someone without charge gives AGS 6 or more months to get everything together. If he's found guilty in court does he lose his job too? Just asking as I was told that happened in a previous case. And for those saying that the Gardaí are still like those in the 90's. No, they are definitely not. Yes, there are some Gardaí who are attempting to cling onto the "good days", but between GSOC, social media and cameras, those days are very close to being well and truly numbered.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » So despite them doing everything correctly, you are satisfied to use this incident as evidence of organisation wide corruption. Just goes to show that it's a no-win situation for Gardaí when it comes to some people.
MadDog76 wrote: » It hasn't been confirmed one way or the other if the Guard left the scene of the incident ........ as he was released without charge I suspect he was in fact arrested at the scene and did not flee. The fact that he was released without charge would suggest that he either passed a breathalyser test or refused to do one and was subsequently blood-tested ....... meaning he won't be charged with drink driving until the results come back and he fails. If there had been no witnesses or civilians involved in this incident he may not have been arrested at all .......... the Force is currently under-going a reformation but it's a slow process and will take years to breed out the "cover-up" culture that has been ingrained in AGS for years. Although the arresting Guards couldn't help their colleague cover-up at the scene of the incident (if these particular Guards were inclined to do so) because of witnesses etc. then they may have been able to help him later on, ie. drive the long way slowly to the station, take their time processing him ......... basically delay getting the blood sample for as long as possible ......... time will tell ......... or maybe it won't
tayto lover wrote: » I'd have done it and lived with a clear conscience. If someone had been killed by one of these drunk drivers and I hadn't reported it on the other hand ...
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Exactly. Even if they didn't work there I'm sure your local Gardai would have known who they were. By ignoring what they were doing you put people's lives at risk. But no, it's easier to bluster and pontificate about what ignorant fools the Gardai are and tar all of them with on brush then actually do something about those few who do wrong isn't it?
RustyNut wrote: » From here
AudreyHepburn wrote: » I think you'll find you're very wrong on that. But don't let common sense get in the way of a good Garda bashing rant.
GSOC have revealed this year the difficulties which they have encountered in working with gardaí. In 2011 three gardaí were convicted of assault and attempting to pervert the course of justice on the back of a GSOC investigation. This was the first time that a GSOC investigation lead to custodial sentences. This investigation has not entirely been classified as a success by GSOC, however, who recently released a statement expressing concern at the cooperation of gardaí with their investigation in that case. Most worrying is the following statement: “It is a cause of concern to the Ombudsman Commission that documentation it sought from the Garda Síochána and which was not supplied, was then produced in the course of the trial by the Defence for certain accused.” Defence counsel in the case was able to secure information that the investigating authorities could not. In its 2012 annual report GSOC took the unusual step of discussing serious delays in the complaints process. Of all unresolved cases at the end of 2012, 73% were overtime. Twenty-one were over two years old. GSOC attributed part of this delay to gardaí consistently not meeting protocol agreed time-frames for exchanging information. On one occasion GSOC waited 542 days for a request for sensitive information to be fulfilled. GSOC has also been denied data which it considers routine and non-sensitive but which an Garda Síochána determines is sensitive. Even efforts to meet, discuss and resolve these issues have taken ‘far too long’. It is evident that cooperation between an Garda Síochána and GSOC is poor in certain respects. One has to wonder if the fact that GSOC is not investigating this latest allegation is connected to the problems which GSOC has already drawn attention to. If so what does this mean for the operational capacity of GSOC? And what does it mean for the accountability of our police service?
RustyNut wrote: » I think the usual procedure is for GSOC to start an investigation and An Garda Síochána and its members to obstruct it at every opportunity.
durtybit wrote: » So are we saying that in this "conflict of interest" incident. The Gardai nor the GSOC will be reliable of due diligence?
michael999999 wrote: » The Mc brearties might say otherwise!
tayto lover wrote: » It's Ireland, not Chicago and the mafia.
Mesrine65 wrote: » If you say so :rolleyes: Obviously one so well endowed with valour must be correct.
tayto lover wrote: » It's still cowardly and nothing you can post will change that.
crusier wrote: » Some people have two arseholes one low down and one high up! How many have you?
Mesrine65 wrote: » Apparently two, both riding high on their judgemental, self-opinionated high horses...
tayto lover wrote: » If you saw someone breaking a law that you could have done something about and maybe saved a life then in my opinion it is extremely cowardly not to have done something about it. How would you have felt if the next morning you heard that a drunk had killed someone on the road and you could have prevented it from happening?
Mesrine65 wrote: » Opinions are like arseholes, we've all got one, you just happen to be my one today. Would've, should've, could've, what if...:rolleyes:
Mesrine65 wrote: » Report them to who, their colleagues?! :rolleyes: They are a tight knit bunch who do look out for each other & do cover for each other, I know, I have family who were detectives (now retired) And by the way, I resent being called a coward, what the fúck would you know about me? :mad:
Little CuChulainn wrote: » I think people underestimate just how acceptable drink driving was 15, even 10, years ago.
Mesrine65 wrote: » You're welcome
crusier wrote: » Thanks for the reply
Mesrine65 wrote: » I will not reply to you as I truly wish to, as I would not like to be banned...
