Police want to talk to you? What do you do?

Dyr · 11-11-2015 08:53PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

Christ! Do people in this day and age still believe this?

I can understand fascist-leaning ministers or the Inquisition coming out with this tripe but surely no sane citizen could be so naive as to believe this themselves.

a coppers moll would believe it

esforum · 11-11-2015 09:05PM

car_jacker wrote: »

sometimes you are asked " to call in for a chat " , if you decline , you then get a follow up call explaining that you will be arrested if you dont show up at the station and volunteer yourself to be arrested , being called in for a chat by police is not the same as being asked in for a chat by your new neighbour , they wouldnt ask you if they didnt suspect you of having done something

Not true, they are obliged to investigate and if your the person the complaint is against then you get the phone call regardless of the Garda's suspicions surrounding the case.

Regardless though, assuming you are a genuine suspect based on evidence to hand, if you accept that either way the Garda is going to have his chat with you why refuse and opt for arrest? Only a career criminal wouldnt be bothered about being arrested in front if his peers during a time that doesnt suit.

car_jacker wrote: »

the risks far outweigh the rewards when it comes to spilling your guts to the police , say nothing and wait until your day in court , the more you say , the more you need to remember in court and if its six months later , its easy to trip yourself up on the stand , the police often have agendas so its naive to think they have your best interest at heart

Their agendas are that criminals get punished for their crimes, a decent person who did something stupid opting to 'fight the law' and ending up with a criminal record when they could have been dealt with by Garda caution is a stupid road to take. Not least because the Judge will more than likely take a dim view of your behaviour, your defence wont be able to argue that you cooperated with the investigation (I presume you would also plead not guilty?) and depending on the case and your occupation, you could get a sentence and / or lose your job. To be fair, in the Irish justice system an actual sentence is very remote but even a suspended sentence is still a criminal conviction.

car_jacker · 11-11-2015 09:21PM

esforum wrote: »

Not true, they are obliged to investigate and if your the person the complaint is against then you get the phone call regardless of the Garda's suspicions surrounding the case.

Regardless though, assuming you are a genuine suspect based on evidence to hand, if you accept that either way the Garda is going to have his chat with you why refuse and opt for arrest? Only a career criminal wouldnt be bothered about being arrested in front if his peers during a time that doesnt suit.

Their agendas are that criminals get punished for their crimes, a decent person who did something stupid opting to 'fight the law' and ending up with a criminal record when they could have been dealt with by Garda caution is a stupid road to take. Not least because the Judge will more than likely take a dim view of your behaviour, your defence wont be able to argue that you cooperated with the investigation (I presume you would also plead not guilty?) and depending on the case and your occupation, you could get a sentence and / or lose your job. To be fair, in the Irish justice system an actual sentence is very remote but even a suspended sentence is still a criminal conviction.

well i once got a call inviting me into have a chat about allegedly following someone into a newsagents , i told the guard i didnt see the person who made the allegation and that i would not be willing to call into to discuss it , got a call back a week later to say i would be arrested if i didnt drop in

dropped in , was arrested in the station ( no cuffs or anything ) , spent a total of two hours in a cell and two hours in the interview room , was advised by my solicitor ( who i saw the day before ) not to agree to provide my prints as even no charges were brought , they would remain on file , refused to give consent to have my prints taken , prints were taken anyway , confirmed my name during interview , picked a spot on the wall and didnt answer a single question for the two hours

got a call six weeks later to say no charges would be brought , my solicitor was then able to arrange for prints to be destroyed

a local troublemaker alledged that i made a gesture at him outside a newsagents , i didnt even see the guy but we were both on cctv in the same store around the same time , i spent a minute in the store so never looked at another soul bar the clerk behind the counter

dont let anyone ever tell you that guards are under resourced , if the right person makes a complaint , they will arrest you for buying a can of coke which is what i went into this particular shop for

LDN_Irish · 11-11-2015 09:21PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

so your 15 years old drunk and waking up people on a camp site ? argument ensues police are called and a group of adults stop you leaving upon which point you become violent and aggressive.
the adult told the truth and the police arrested the violent drunk aggressive 15 year old . you submit a statement that is full of lies and refuse to answer any other questions.
police investigate and get the whole story presumably from the original man and friends who were willing to speak to them .
out come is no charges and you are offered to opportunity to get your justice but you turned that down.

seems like you were well done by the police despite being in the wrong and refusing to cooperate

Nope, the only things you got correct there are that I was 15 and drunk and that the CPS dropped the charges but gave me the chance but allowed me to keep charges on the original attacker which is refused. The rest just shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. How was my statement full of lies? By omitting things that could incriminate me? How could you "fill" a statement with omission?

But your detective work where you've basically accused me of lying to the good people of AH by creating a scenario at odds with mine despite not knowing me or being there (that's quite rude isn't it really? Would you appreciate if I recreated an anecdote you'd recounted and called you a liar for no reason other than that's not how I think things work based on fookall?) has missed one thing. I dropped the charges against the attacker, not the CPS. The police never even arrested him despite him admitting he'd hit me first. Why did the CPS still have charges against him after they'd already dropped them against me? Answer: Because he'd admitted his guilt at the scene.

So the moral of the story is, whether my version (the only person here who was there, unlime yourself) of events is true (and it is) or yours that you've literally created out of fookall other than not believing for reasons best known to yourself is true, is don't talk to the police. Other than my good grace that man would be walking around with a conviction for ABH, solely based on his own admission. Other than his admission, I'd probably be walking around with an ABH conviction.

mynamejeff wrote: »

seems like you were well done by the police despite being in the wrong and refusing to cooperate

Just to go back to this because it's hilarious and shows how clueless you are. WHAT ARE YOU BASING THIS ON??

My god, I'd be embarrassed to write that in reply to what I've said, unless I was on the bloody creative writing forum. I gave literally no info on the police other than they arrested me and didn't arrest the man who admitted he started a physical confrontation because he'd been woken up on a holiday campsite. How could you possibly think you're qualified to make the statement that it seems I was well done by them? Are you not cringing for yourself? How could you possibly think you're qualified to accuse me of being uncooperative with the police based on what I said? Because I replied "no comment" to questions that had the potential to incriminate me? Jesus Christ. Take a reddener. Or better still, take a conviction. Because that's exactly what you'll get if you go in to a station to answer questions with the same attitude you've approached my post.

Dyr · 11-11-2015 09:26PM

esforum wrote: »

Their agendas are that criminals get punished for their crimes

One of their many possible agendas is that someone/anyone get punished for a crime. They will quite happily shaft innocent third parties as part of that process so its best to avoid any dealing with them as much as you can

car_jacker · 11-11-2015 09:42PM

Bambi wrote: »

One of their many possible agendas is that someone/anyone get punished for a crime. They will quite happily shaft innocent third parties as part of that process so its best to avoid any dealing with them as much as you can

sometimes its much easier for police to slaughter a few chickens than to take on a hungry fox

most important thing is to bring a situation to a conclusion

BBDBB · 11-11-2015 09:57PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Thanks for that. I'm suitably convinced to change my view, despite the laws referenced being based in the USA the psychology of juries, officers and prosecutors is really compelling for staying silent

esforum · 11-11-2015 10:05PM

car_jacker wrote: »

well i once got a call inviting me into have a chat about allegedly following someone into a newsagents , i told the guard i didnt see the person who made the allegation and that i would not be willing to call into to discuss it , got a call back a week later to say i would be arrested if i didnt drop in

dropped in , was arrested in the station ( no cuffs or anything ) , spent a total of two hours in a cell and two hours in the interview room , was advised by my solicitor ( who i saw the day before ) not to agree to provide my prints as even no charges were brought , they would remain on file , refused to give consent to have my prints taken , prints were taken anyway , confirmed my name during interview , picked a spot on the wall and didnt answer a single question for the two hours

got a call six weeks later to say no charges would be brought , my solicitor was then able to arrange for prints to be destroyed

a local troublemaker alledged that i made a gesture at him outside a newsagents , i didnt even see the guy but we were both on cctv in the same store around the same time , i spent a minute in the store so never looked at another soul bar the clerk behind the counter

dont let anyone ever tell you that guards are under resourced , if the right person makes a complaint , they will arrest you for buying a can of coke which is what i went into this particular shop for

Im amazed that after a Garda offered you not 1 but 2 chances to come in by appointment you decide that in future not co-operating is the best option. Despite not being arrested during family dinner or in work and not being charged with anything. Your fingeroprints get destroyed anyway without request, how much did the legal eagle charge for this 'service'? He could have just arrived at your front door and arrested you, cuffed you and kept you for 6 hours, instead he invited you in, warned you that he would have no option but arrest if you didnt, arrested you atr the station and never once handcuffed you. What exactly was so terrible? Should Gardai just ignore complaints?

As for resources, grow up. You were suspected of an arrestable offence and were treated well. It was not a can of coke and Gardai dont jump through hoops to facilitate known criminals like your suggesting (Without any reason)

If you want cold hard facts about resources here they:

An Garda Siochana is the 57th smallest police force out of 300 conducted by the United Nations.

An Garda Siochana ranks as the 45th lowest police to population ratio.

The number of 261 is dangreously close to the magic 220 which the UN state is the very minimum before policing breaks down and cannot be considered 'adequate'.

The Republic of Ireland is larger in size but has a 20% smaller population than New York City but yet only has 25% of the police (NYPD have 50,000).

The Republic of Ireland is similar in size and population to Hungary but yet only has 30% of the police (Hungary have 40,000).

There have been more Gardai killed in the line of duty than PSNI officers but yet they remain armed and have a resource ratio of 350 to population.

The Republic of Ireland is smaller in size and population to Spain by a factor of 10 times (Spain has 60 million to Ireland 6 million) but has a ratio of 16 times difference in policing (12000 to 200,000 police officers). In order for An Garda Siochana to match the Spanish system an additional 8,000 Garda would need to be recruited in additional to those needed to cover retirements, etc.

All major european nations far outweigh Ireland in policing resources, nevermind sheer numbers. Compare cars, equipment, helicopters. An Garda Siochana is laughable under resourced. For gods sake, it took 2 Gardai being savagely attacked by knives and the offer of second hand vests from the NYPD to shame the government into providing such a basic safety item during the good aul days.

As for the rest, well people will dislike Gardai. Im not going to bother trying to change that.

esforum · 11-11-2015 10:09PM

car_jacker wrote: »

sometimes its much easier for police to slaughter a few chickens than to take on a hungry fox

most important thing is to bring a situation to a conclusion

You werent charged. If your allegation was true you would have been charged.

Was it easier for Garda Golden to take the easy option?

Have a couple of dozen innocent people been charged with Garda Donohoe's murder?

Like I said, too many agendas and US TV in this thread

mezzanine08 · 11-11-2015 10:11PM

anvilfour wrote: »

One of my first dealings with the Police was around 7 years ago [...]

That's mental. How old was this girl? I bet she didn't even get more than a slap on the wrist for attempting to ruin a person's whole life/career unprovoked.

Nate--IRL-- · 11-11-2015 10:28PM

Here's some interesting reading on your right to silence, and where it ends.... and where Inferences may be drawn, for certain offences, if you stay silent.

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

Nate

Corpus Twisty · 11-11-2015 10:46PM

Deny everything/say the other person started it. Stick to that. The minute you stray from that mantra, you're a gonner. "What speed do you think you were doing Sir?"
"Well under the limit Gard,,"
Creates doubt...
If you engage as having done wrong, you convict yourself out of your own mouth...

"What speed do you think you were doing Sir?"
"Ah yeah sorry Gard, I was doing 130, I wasn't paying attention..."
Boom, you're gone.

The same applies no matter the matter..he hit me first/It fell into my bag/I stumbled and landed on him/I was barely doing 50, your equipment is broken/I'm a pioneer, your machine must be borked...

Eugene Norman · 11-11-2015 10:48PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

I was going to post that. It's the video that convinced me to never talk to police (if it ever happens) without a solicitor.

Dyr · 11-11-2015 10:53PM

esforum wrote: »

Im amazed that after a Garda offered you not 1 but 2 chances to come in by appointment you decide that in future not co-operating is the best option. Despite not being arrested during family dinner or in work and not being charged with anything. Your fingeroprints get destroyed anyway without request, how much did the legal eagle charge for this 'service'? He could have just arrived at your front door and arrested you, cuffed you and kept you for 6 hours, instead he invited you in, warned you that he would have no option but arrest if you didnt, arrested you atr the station and never once handcuffed you. What exactly was so terrible? Should Gardai just ignore complaints?

As for resources, grow up. You were suspected of an arrestable offence and were treated well. It was not a can of coke and Gardai dont jump through hoops to facilitate known criminals like your suggesting (Without any reason)

If you want cold hard facts about resources here they:

An Garda Siochana is the 57th smallest police force out of 300 conducted by the United Nations.

An Garda Siochana ranks as the 45th lowest police to population ratio.

The number of 261 is dangreously close to the magic 220 which the UN state is the very minimum before policing breaks down and cannot be considered 'adequate'.

The Republic of Ireland is larger in size but has a 20% smaller population than New York City but yet only has 25% of the police (NYPD have 50,000).

The Republic of Ireland is similar in size and population to Hungary but yet only has 30% of the police (Hungary have 40,000).

There have been more Gardai killed in the line of duty than PSNI officers but yet they remain armed and have a resource ratio of 350 to population.

The Republic of Ireland is smaller in size and population to Spain by a factor of 10 times (Spain has 60 million to Ireland 6 million) but has a ratio of 16 times difference in policing (12000 to 200,000 police officers). In order for An Garda Siochana to match the Spanish system an additional 8,000 Garda would need to be recruited in additional to those needed to cover retirements, etc.

All major european nations far outweigh Ireland in policing resources, nevermind sheer numbers. Compare cars, equipment, helicopters. An Garda Siochana is laughable under resourced. For gods sake, it took 2 Gardai being savagely attacked by knives and the offer of second hand vests from the NYPD to shame the government into providing such a basic safety item during the good aul days.

As for the rest, well people will dislike Gardai. Im not going to bother trying to change that.

No shortage when there's a water meter installation to be protected from shouty locals or office documents to be shredded

RustyNut · 11-11-2015 11:20PM

I wonder what the Garda Representative Association would advise their members to do when invited in for a "chat" in relation to a complaint made against them.

mynamejeff · 11-11-2015 11:35PM

Bambi wrote: »

No shortage when there's a water meter installation to be protected from shouty locals or office documents to be shredded

arent you a master debater bambi ,

really why bother conversing with some one like that

mynamejeff · 11-11-2015 11:40PM

RustyNut wrote: »

I wonder what the Garda Representative Association would advise their members to do when invited in for a "chat" in relation to a complaint made against them.

since the an garda siochana act 2005 gardai are obligated to account for thier action both on and off duty
(they are not entitled to the right to silence that you and me are )

the same act says that if a serving garda talks to a journo or TD they can be sacked fined or jailed
( so no freedom of speech that you and me enjoy )

but its ok you feel free to make another ill informed remark in a vain attempt to appear as if you are smuggling intelligence some where :cool:

Dyr · 11-11-2015 11:52PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

since the an garda siochana act 2005 gardai are obligated to account for thier action both on and off duty
(they are not entitled to the right to silence that you and me are )

the same act says that if a serving garda talks to a journo or TD they can be sacked fined or jailed
( so no freedom of speech that you and me enjoy )

but its ok you feel free to make another ill informed remark in a vain attempt to appear as if you are smuggling intelligence some where :cool:

There is no absolute right to silence in this country.

Has a garda ever been fined, sacked or jailed for talking to a journalist?

It's been established that there is a principle in irish law that gardai will not receive custodial sentences, so who's ill informed here?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0527/301633-foleyd/

toptom · 11-11-2015 11:53PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'll never understand why people are so unwilling to cooperate with the police.

If you've done nothing wrong what have you got to lose?

Refusing to talk or to even go in for interview when they call are, to my mind, the most foolish things you could do. You're practically asking them to suspect you of wrongdoing.

very true Audrey, glad to see a poster on the right side of the law here. Some shameful comments here regarding talking to the guards.

If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to lose by talking to them.

mynamejeff · 11-11-2015 11:56PM

Bambi wrote: »

There is no absolute right to silence in this country.

Has a garda ever been fined, sacked or jailed for talking to a journalist?

It's been established that there is a principle in irish law that gardai will not receive custodial sentences, so who's ill informed here?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0527/301633-foleyd/

once again your undone by a 30 second google search , must try harder bambi

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/jail-for-corrupt-garda-27507875.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/two-gardai-are-jailed-for-role-in-ferocious-arrest-assault-26789927.html

http://www.joe.ie/uncategorized/garda-jailed-after-gay-shirt-assault/24444

THere is a right to silence , there is just consequences in come circumstances.

RustyNut · 12-11-2015 12:18AM

mynamejeff wrote: »

once again your undone by a 30 second google search , must try harder bambi

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/jail-for-corrupt-garda-27507875.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/two-gardai-are-jailed-for-role-in-ferocious-arrest-assault-26789927.html

http://www.joe.ie/uncategorized/garda-jailed-after-gay-shirt-assault/24444

THere is a right to silence , there is just consequences in come circumstances.

Those links just show more reasons not to deal with guards if it can at all be avoided.

walshyn93 · 12-11-2015 12:24AM

Spoken to a long serving Irish detective on the matter at length. Told me say nothing. I could go into mountains of detail and give you stories to illustrate the point, but I've heard it from the horses mouth. Many guilty people have walked free after 6 hours of questioning from keeping mum and even though their silence only confirmed their guilt in the Gardas eyes it didn't change the outcome. Also in Ireland the Garda cannot use the non answering of a question as evidence. If you stay silent to a question as far as a jury is concerned you were never asked it. As a result of that if you refuse to answer any question it looks as though the Gardaí never questioned you at all.

Dyr · 12-11-2015 12:27AM

mynamejeff wrote: »

once again your undone by a 30 second google search , must try harder bambi

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/jail-for-corrupt-garda-27507875.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/two-gardai-are-jailed-for-role-in-ferocious-arrest-assault-26789927.html

http://www.joe.ie/uncategorized/garda-jailed-after-gay-shirt-assault/24444

THere is a right to silence , there is just consequences in come circumstances.

Everyone knows the difference between a principle and a rule yeah? Apparently not

. Whats even funnier is you used the Dean Foley case as an example. That was the very case where the judge forced the defence to drag that principle out into the eye of the public. Oops.

So no absolute right to silence, we've established that

Any joy googling for a copper who got done for passing information on to a journo? I know you've been searching furiously.

You'd imagine they'd just have to ask the gardai who are keeping an eye on paul reynolds 24-7 who his little moles are

mynamejeff · 12-11-2015 12:35AM

RustyNut wrote: »

Those links just show more reasons not to deal with guards if it can at all be avoided.

don't really matter what evidence is presented does it ?

why bother really .............

Cienciano · 12-11-2015 12:39AM

anvilfour wrote: »

I know in retrospect I did the right thing but my advice to anyone who thinks they have nothing to hide, is it might be best to remain silent on legal advice. There is plenty of time to mention any points in your defence when the matter comes to court!

I was listening to a podcast about this before and they basically said this. The dangerous thing is, innocent people will talk to the police. They think because they're innocent, they have nothing to hide. But the police could either think you're guilty already, or you might incriminate yourself. Plenty of innocent people are charged.

RustyNut · 12-11-2015 12:44AM

Cienciano wrote: »

I was listening to a podcast about this before and they basically said this. The dangerous thing is, innocent people will talk to the police. They think because they're innocent, they have nothing to hide. But the police could either think you're guilty already, or you might incriminate yourself. Plenty of innocent people are charged.

And according to a poster above who sounds well informed a benefit of talking to the police only accrues to guilty people. Either a caution if an offence is admitted or a shorter or less harsh penalty on conviction.
You might be able to avoid an inconvenient arrest by turning up and doing a no comment interview.

mynamejeff · 12-11-2015 12:47AM

Bambi wrote: »

Everyone knows the difference between a principle and a rule yeah? Apparently not . Whats even funnier is you used the Dean Foley case as an example. That was the very case where the judge forced the defence to drag that principle out into the eye of the public. Oops.

So no absolute right to silence, we've established that

Any joy googling for a copper who got done for passing information on to a journo? I know you've been searching furiously.

You'd imagine they'd just have to ask the gardai who are keeping an eye on paul reynolds 24-7 who his little moles are

thats just the first ones that pop up on good actually , and they all went to jail and for longer than most would get if they came before the courts with no previous . want me to google the many cases where people with multiple convictions attacked some garda and got no jail time or can you manage that your self ?
so you are incorrect.

Did you read the law ? did you understand it ? where does it say that you don't have a right to silence? inferences can be drawn from the refusal to answer questions in very specific circumstances.
again your are incorrect.

are you aware of where hacks like reynolds gets his dirt ? seems like he makes a lot of it up. Also are you aware of the various gardai who approached TDs and suffered for it ?
so again incorrect in your assumptions .

i think you over estimate my passing interest in boards i will admit it irks me slightly when people dress up opinion as fact

12-11-2015 12:58AM

RustyNut wrote: »

I wonder what the Garda Representative Association would advise their members to do when invited in for a "chat" in relation to a complaint made against them.

They advise them to speak to one of the GRA solicitors, or their own solicitor.

RustyNut · 12-11-2015 12:59AM

Deleted User wrote: »

They advise them to speak to one of the GRA solicitors, or their own solicitor.

Good advice, for all.

anvilfour · 12-11-2015 12:47PM

gramar wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree. Thing is...the police/gardaí arrest a lot of people..some guilty some not but they will all protest their innocence regardless so they've heard it all before. Might be best to say as little as possible till you can gather your thoughts.

There you have it gramar, there is no point protesting your innocence and you may actually strengthen their hand in so doing by admitting to something in all honesty e.g revealing you were near to where a crime took place.

Police want to talk to you? What do you do?

Comments