Don't know where else to post this

54and56 · 30-09-2015 12:39PM

punk_one82 wrote: »

Do you think what the OP described is deserving of their reaction? It sounds completely unacceptable.

As soon as he didn't co-operate by giving them his name and reached for something he gave them every reason to restrain him. If he hadn't reached for something in his pocket they would probably have advised him that if he continued to refuse to give them his name they would arrest him but that process was accelerated by his action to take something (could have been a knife, syringe or gun etc) out of his pocket.

Lesson learned. If a Guard asks for your name you give it. They are employed to protect us all. How would you feel if someone had just stolen €1,000 from your parents house and was allowed to walk on because he refused to give his name or co-operate?

Tones66 · 30-09-2015 12:45PM

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

No one asked you to bend over. All they asked was your name. Why not be curtious and reply with your name?? You immediately went on the defensive with them, like, I dunno, somebody with something to hide. Refused to co-operate in any way shape or form and then decided to get the camera phone out. Why in Gods name did you feel threatened or intimidated? They are 3 Gardai in a marked squad car in the middle of Kilkenny asking you your name. Not 3 gang bangers in the Bronx. Did you think they were going to steal your money or something? FFS, seriously?!

What did you expect the Garda to do from that point on ward apart from arrest you until the could be satisfied you were not a burglar?

Maybe they shoud have asked your name again and say "pretty please" this time in the hope you would just answer him? Maybe wait for you to get the camera phone out, get the camera function on, switch over to video and then point it in his face? Maybe just let you walk off without knowing who you are or where you are coming from?

How would I or most people react?

Well right after the Garda mentioned there had been burgalries in the area (hence why they stopped a lone guy with a hoodie up walking down the street at 3am on a random Tuesday night) and asked me my name, I'd have told him my name. Then when he asked could he search me I'd have said sure but by the way I have a grand in winnings from the casino, shown my memebership card, receipts, whatever proof I had on me and mentioned that the CCTV in the casion will no doubt prove this also.

After all this I would have made my way to Supermacs, had a burger and chips and went home to bed still buzzing from having won a grand earlier.

It would have made a good story even greater to tell my mates over a pint this weekend that I won a grand and almost got nicked by the Gardai afterwards (ha ha). But instead you are on here moaning about getting yourself arrested with the usual defenders of freedom spouting crap and telling you to complain to all and sundry. No point because you have not got a leg to stand on.

You failed to mention the choking on the ground part...???why choke someone when already handcuffed...pretty important detail!!

54and56 · 30-09-2015 12:45PM

matt-dublin wrote: »

I'd also send a tip into the journal about it because if they publish something it puts the Gardai on the back foot immediately as there's already enough publicity about excessive use of force from them.

This is very bad advice. If you allow yourself to be used as a poster boy for the anti everything brigade it will follow you your whole life. Think what a potential employer or father in law will think about a person who publicly admits to a) walking around at 3am on a Wednesday morning with €1,000 in cash from a casino in his back pocket with his hoody up? b) refuses to give his name to Guards who stop him in the process of apprehending a burglar who has been active in the are? and c) get's all smart alicky with the Guards then wonders why he got arrested and spent the night in a cell?

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 12:46PM

Agent Smith wrote: »

Boom

Have you gone through the relevant provisions at the bottom of that section?

Which one pertains to the OP in this case?

One eyed Jack · 30-09-2015 12:57PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Aren't the cops PAID to help him? Protect him?

He was afraid and wanted to record what was about to happen and his fears were justified because they did indeed end up hurting him.

But you yourself said earlier -

asherbassad wrote: »

If the cops have nothing to hide they've nothing to fear, right?

By that standard, you're suggesting that the OP must have had something to hide because they were afraid of the Gardaí?

Otherwise, your double standards simply don't make any sense.

I'm leaning more towards the latter than the former.

Vic_08 · 30-09-2015 01:00PM

kneemos wrote: »

I would have arrested you for just being annoying.

If being annoying was a crime you'd be doing life.

30-09-2015 01:02PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Are you just making sh1t up?

:D

Says poster who asked was search warrant needed for a stop and search!

Tones66 wrote: »

You failed to mention the choking on the ground part...???why choke someone when already handcuffed...pretty important detail!!

Thats not some established fact, it is a claim by someone who had drink taken, who accepts he reacted wrongly, and that he has had a panic attack on at least one occasion.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 01:14PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd imagine the fact he went to take something from his pocket led to him being taken down.

Bit of a dickhead move - I'd imagine a well trained Guard isn't going to wait and see if it is in fact a phone you're going for.

The phone was already OUT of his pocket. The choke hold was thrown on him when he said he wanted to record what was going on.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 01:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Mother of Jesus.

It's laughable what people churn out about the law. A search warrant needed for a stop and search...:D:D:D

Really?

Are you a lawyer?

A garda can ask you to stop at any time. In certain circumstances, such as when you are driving, you must stop if asked to by a Garda. A garda can search you, without your consent, if the garda has reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence. This includes people under the age of 18. The Garda should tell you why you are being searched.

Search on Arrest
When you are arrested, the Gardai may take goods in your possession if they believe that it is necessary to do so and if the goods are evidence in support of a criminal charge. The Gardai may search you after your arrest without a search warrant and the goods seized may be kept and used as evidence at your trial.

The OP said he didn't consent to being searched. The Guards, from what I can gather, didn't tell him why he was being searched without his consent because it didn't get that far. He told them he wanted to record the proceedings and that when they cuffed him and put him in a choke hold.

Are you telling me that a Guard can just walk up to you in the street and say "turn around, face the wall, spread your legs" and then proceed to search you?

Come on Atticus, enlighten us.

H3llR4iser · 30-09-2015 01:31PM

I just can't understand why people think it's fine to film/photograph everything, especially other people working and even more particularly, in situations that can turn volatile at any minute.

The "if you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to be filmed!" argument is totally off the mark and spectacularly silly: footage and pictures can be edited, cut and manipulated to show things according to one's preferred distortion of facts.

Not too long ago, there was a screenshot taken from some footage taken during a demonstration somewhere in Europe that did the rounds of most news websites of the world; The picture showed a young girl laying on the ground, clearly scared, circled by more than a dozen police officers. "Abuse", "Police Brutality!" and all the likes where shouted - until the girl decided to speak up: she had been pushed and made to fall by the other demonstrators themselves, and the officers circled around to avoid her being stampeded. Only then, the full footage finally came out showing the entire event.

If I am working in any capacity and somebody comes around shoving a phone in my face to "film", I'd shove it back to them where the sun never shines, end of the story. Try going, say, near a construction site and pretend to film the workers doing their stuff, then tell me how many days in hospital you end up spending...

30-09-2015 01:37PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Really?

Are you a lawyer?

A garda can ask you to stop at any time. In certain circumstances, such as when you are driving, you must stop if asked to by a Garda. A garda can search you, without your consent, if the garda has reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence. This includes people under the age of 18. The Garda should tell you why you are being searched.

Search on Arrest
When you are arrested, the Gardai may take goods in your possession if they believe that it is necessary to do so and if the goods are evidence in support of a criminal charge. The Gardai may search you after your arrest without a search warrant and the goods seized may be kept and used as evidence at your trial.

The OP said he didn't consent to being searched. The Guards, from what I can gather, didn't tell him why he was being searched without his consent because it didn't get that far. He told them he wanted to record the proceedings and that when they cuffed him and put him in a choke hold.

Are you telling me that a Guard can just walk up to you in the street and say "turn around, face the wall, spread your legs" and then proceed to search you?

Come on Atticus, enlighten us.

As it so happens, I am.

But as every other poster in this entire thread - apart from you - knows, a search warrant is a written document and thus invariably applies to the search of a premises. Unless you persuade someone to stand really still for the few hours it takes to run off and get one...:D:D

As I said, the amount of nonsense churned out, you really can only laugh. If you are suggesting the Gardai should obtain a search warrant to search an individual walking down a street, not only do you not understand the issues but you aren't even really thinking about them.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 01:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Mother of Jesus.

It's laughable what people churn out about the law. A search warrant needed for a stop and search...:D:D:D

Necessity for a Search Warrant
In most cases, a search warrant is necessary before a Garda may search a person, a vehicle or a premises. However, certain legislation entitles the Gardai to go on premises without a warrant, for example, the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, the Public Dance Halls Act, and the Health Acts.

You still want to throw in a bunch of fcuking smiley faces, Columbo?

Mesrine65 · 30-09-2015 01:39PM

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/powers_of_search.html

30-09-2015 01:40PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Necessity for a Search Warrant
In most cases, a search warrant is necessary before a Garda may search a person, a vehicle or a premises. However, certain legislation entitles the Gardai to go on premises without a warrant, for example, the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, the Public Dance Halls Act, and the Health Acts.

You still want to throw in a bunch of fcuking smiley faces, Columbo?

You're getting angrier.

And funnier.

Give Google a break, think about the matter. Drop the search warrant stuff, you are just digging and digging and digging.

The OP is not Public Dance Hall. He is a human being...:D:D

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 01:45PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right, it's absolutely not any sort of an excuse for Gardaí to behave like that with a citizen who is being cooperative with them when they are trying to protect said citizen from harm (if the OP had been relieved of his winnings by one lesser upstanding citizen, who would they expect should have protected them?).

That's why I'd love to be privy to the details of the incident from the Gardaí's perspective. You're right in pointing out that a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss, but that's exactly what's missing here.

But there are an awful lot of people on here who simply say the OP was in the wrong....even if what he says is EXACTLY how things transpired.

They are the kind of people who think that anyone who exercises their rights is a troublemaker who deserves to be smacked down.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 01:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell us about the one where you thought a search warrant was needed for a stop and search!

Your funny stuff is far better than the sweary stuff.

Right here buddy:

Necessity for a Search Warrant
In most cases, a search warrant is necessary before a Garda may search a person, a vehicle or a premises. However, certain legislation entitles the Gardai to go on premises without a warrant, for example, the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, the Public Dance Halls Act, and the Health Acts.

If a Garda gets a search warrant relating to certain offences he/she may search the premises named and any person on the premises. Examples of this are a search warrant issued under the Offences Against the State Act 1939, or the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001. Under the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1979, as amended by Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, the Gardaí can obtain a warrant in relation to an arrestable offence.

Other legislation, for example, the Dublin Police Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Criminal Law Act and the Animal Remedies Act, entitles police officers to search you and/or your vehicle without a warrant.

If one of these statutes is being invoked in order to search you without a search warrant, you are entitled to told about it.

I hope you read down through that and can tell us where the Guards in this case cited not only the reason for the search but also under which statute they were exercising their right to search the OP without a warrant.

Is that good enough for you?

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 01:52PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Yeah, three thieves riding around in a squad car and uniforms.
If the victim complied with gardai there would have been no issue.

And if the gardai respected the victim's rights there would have been no issue either.

One eyed Jack · 30-09-2015 01:56PM

asherbassad wrote: »

The phone was already OUT of his pocket. The choke hold was thrown on him when he said he wanted to record what was going on.

Either the 'choke hold' wasn't a choke hold, or that didn't happen.

30-09-2015 01:56PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Right here buddy:

Necessity for a Search Warrant
In most cases, a search warrant is necessary before a Garda may search a person, a vehicle or a premises. However, certain legislation entitles the Gardai to go on premises without a warrant, for example, the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, the Public Dance Halls Act, and the Health Acts.

If a Garda gets a search warrant relating to certain offences he/she may search the premises named and any person on the premises. Examples of this are a search warrant issued under the Offences Against the State Act 1939, or the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001. Under the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1979, as amended by Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, the Gardaí can obtain a warrant in relation to an arrestable offence.

Other legislation, for example, the Dublin Police Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Criminal Law Act and the Animal Remedies Act, entitles police officers to search you and/or your vehicle without a warrant.

If one of these statutes is being invoked in order to search you without a search warrant, you are entitled to told about it.

I hope you read down through that and can tell us where the Guards in this case cited not only the reason for the search but also under which statute they were exercising their right to search the OP without a warrant.

Is that good enough for you?

If you are googling, and cutting and pasting that info from the Citizens Information page, I suggest you scroll back up and start with the basics...

The first line, the heading "personal searches", the next heading "search warrants" which refers to authority to enter premises.

There is no such thing as getting a search warrant to stop a random fellow walking down a street. None. Nil. nada. It would not be applied for. It would not be obtained. There is no Judge or PC in the country that would countenance it. Your continued insistence only shows that you are not even thinking about the issue and just hoping to Google your way out of it (Public Dance Halls...:D:D).

It's just...nonsense. The issue has nothing to do with warrants. The issue is the standard statutory powers of stopping, and whether the Gardai exceeded them.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 02:00PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What's wrong with me is, three gardai tried to do what they're paid to do and you have someone back answering, refusing to co operate and threathening to record them just doing their job. And we all know where that would end up, all over Facebook, even when it makes the person who took it look foolish (think during the water protests. Trying to goade gardai into reacting)

He could have been anyone. He could have had drugs on him. He could have had a gun on him. He could have had a knife. They did not know because he would not comply. Are they supposed to be mind readers?? If the OP
Was dodge and was on his way to shoot someone, the same gardai would be under fire for NOT detaining him.

No, the OP wasn't back-answering them. But that isn't a crime. The crux of your argument is that the cops should be able to do what they want. When your argument is shown to be flawed you embellish it with the usual **** of them "just trying to do their job". You sugarcoat their actions and make his sound like criminality.

Right there you lose all credibility. You say he "threatened" to record them. Again, spin and sinister language to make it sound like something nefarious.
You should work for a tabloid.

The OP said he wanted to record the proceedings. That isn't a threat, nor is it illegal. You don't like someone standing up for themselves because you can't do so yourself and so you feel the need to smear them, tough shit.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 02:02PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What's wrong with me is, three gardai tried to do what they're paid to do and you have someone back answering, refusing to co operate and threathening to record them just doing their job. And we all know where that would end up, all over Facebook, even when it makes the person who took it look foolish (think during the water protests. Trying to goade gardai into reacting)

He could have been anyone. He could have had drugs on him. He could have had a gun on him. He could have had a knife. They did not know because he would not comply. Are they supposed to be mind readers?? If the OP
Was dodge and was on his way to shoot someone, the same gardai would be under fire for NOT detaining him.

Excuse me?

Anyone can be anyone.

kneemos · 30-09-2015 02:03PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Excuse me?

Anyone can be anyone.

Often are.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 02:08PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, but wouldn't that apply to the OP moreso than the Gardaí? The Gardaí are in a position of authority to question the OP. It just doesn't really work the other way round... as the OP quickly found out :pac:

Bloody brilliant!

Not really OOJ. The OP has the right to refuse to answer any questions. Telling him if he has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear is incitement to coercion.

It is not illegal to film the cops and if they order you to stop they are breaking the law.

So if it is illegal for a cop to order you to stop filming it's because they have something to hide and the law concurs that this could be the case.

If you refuse to give your name, the law is on your side. The "nothing to hide nothing to fear" bullsh1t is just playing games to try and make you feel bad about not bending to will.

Dr. Mantis Toboggan · 30-09-2015 02:09PM

kneemos wrote: »

Often are.

I'm pretty sure i'm somebody. I may also be anybody.

jimgoose · 30-09-2015 02:10PM

Dr. Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

I'm pretty sure i'm somebody. I may also be anybody.

Coupla Jimmy Beams and I'm anybody's!

nxbyveromdwjpg · 30-09-2015 02:14PM

They can search a person on the street with reasonable cause. Reasonable cause seems to be anything at all, making it farcical really.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 30-09-2015 02:17PM

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I just can't understand why people think it's fine to film/photograph everything, especially other people working and even more particularly, in situations that can turn volatile at any minute.

They film them precisely because they can turn volatile at any minute.

kupus · 30-09-2015 02:17PM

you acted like a dick. you get treated like a dick. shock horror realities of life stuff.
sweet jesus are the people who are telling him go to a solicitor wrapped up in cotton wool all their lives.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 02:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have littered your posts with swearing and abuse of other posters, calling them clowns, sneering at what you suggest is their ignorance.

Only one poster here, on either side of the issue, thought a search warrant was needed for a stop and search.

That was you.

It's still the funniest contribution here mind you!

I'll let the penny drop for you.

asherbassad · 30-09-2015 02:35PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This is what the op said

It's a tactic. They wanted to search him for drugs but they couldn't say that because you can't just stop someone and search them. You have to believe they were in the commission of a crime. The perfect tactic when trying to search random people for drugs is the "been some break-ins" ruse. It's a no-lose trick for the guards. A naive person who doesn't know his rights will just let them search away...even a stupid kid with a joint will let them search thinking they're looking for some woman's jewellery and then bust him or issue a summons when they find something.
Anyone who refuses the search, they will fcuk with like the OP.

Don't know where else to post this

Comments