Guards deny innocent woman her malteasers

notjustsweet wrote: »

Well.....as clever and well thought out as that remark was, it's very easy to follow a guard home after a shift. Standing outside someone's house isn't an arrestable offence and yet it's pretty intimidating.
Probably slightly easier than flying to a different country, finding Donald Trump, getting past his security and punching him.

Actually it's not that clever or well thought out by me. It's simply the law and the determination of whether a threat amounts to assault.

Ability to carry out the threat immediately, the proximity of time or geography, is one of the constituent elements of an assault, which is of course directly or indirectly applying force or causing someone to believe that he or she will be subjected to such force.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/2/enacted/en/html

It falls way short if the mark. We don't even know if the Garda has a wife or family!

Not sure what he could get done for really. If he behaved like that outside the Garda car, he could expect a Section 6 Public Order and a payment to the Court poor box. Yeah, he may be a scumbag, but that's not a crime in itself.

lawlolawl

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, he may be a scumbag, but that's not a crime in itself.

It should be. Hold people up to certain standards of behavior in society.

The "wait until he does something" approach is why pretty much every murder/manslaughter in the country is done by someone with double digit priors. The judiciary has decided that we have to wait for the other shoe to drop before we actually do something about the utter wastes of space that are wandering our streets making life miserable for everyone else.

A documented assault or threat to a member of the police, defense forces, fire fighting or medical staff should carry a mandatory 5 year prison sentence. These ****ers should be petrified to step out of line.

The state is paying for their parasitic lifestyle, it should basically own them like livestock.

lawlolawl wrote: »

It should be. Hold people up to certain standards of behavior in society.

The "wait until he does something" approach is why pretty much every murder/manslaughter in the country is done by someone with double digit priors. The judiciary has decided that we have to wait for the other shoe to drop before we actually do something about the utter wastes of space that are wandering our streets making life miserable for everyone else.

A documented assault or threat to a member of the police, defense forces, fire fighting or medical staff should carry a mandatory 5 year prison sentence. These ****ers should be petrified to step out of line.

The state is paying for their parasitic lifestyle, it should basically own them like livestock.

No we shouldn't convict people on the basis of character. We should convict them if they break the law.

And no it is not the judiciary that has decided that to constitute assault, a threat must be immediate, it's contained in the legislation. If anyone doesn't like it, they should write to their TD to lobby for a change in the law.

There is simply no assault here. That's just the way it is.

And no, the State should not "own" people on social welfare "like livestock".

It's not a crime to be an idiot

tayto lover

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not a crime to be an idiot

No but ignorant uneducated louts offer nothing to society. They only take and make decent people's lives a misery at times.

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually it's not that clever or well thought out by me. It's simply the law and the determination of whether a threat amounts to assault.

Ability to carry out the threat immediately, the proximity of time or geography, is one of the constituent elements of an assault, which is of course directly or indirectly applying force or causing someone to believe that he or she will be subjected to such force.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/2/enacted/en/html

It falls way short if the mark. We don't even know if the Garda has a wife or family!

Not sure what he could get done for really. If he behaved like that outside the Garda car, he could expect a Section 6 Public Order and a payment to the Court poor box. Yeah, he may be a scumbag, but that's not a crime in itself.

Threats to kill or cause serious harm. NFOAP Act 1997

5.—(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat, by any means intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or cause serious harm to that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence,

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both.

well your right about him being a scumbag but also a criminal offence seems to be clear

mynamejeff wrote: »

Threats to kill or cause serious harm. NFOAP Act 1997

5.—(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat, by any means intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or cause serious harm to that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence,

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both.

well your right about him being a scumbag but also a criminal offence seems to be clear

I can honestly say I've never seen that prosecuted, and I think any Solicitor would point out that the Garda's belief would have to be reasonably held. For starters, does this Garda have a wife and children? If he doesn't, well then it's case over. I think the prosecution would need to show that the accused knew of his family circumstances, where they lived etc.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can honestly say I've never seen that prosecuted, and I think any Solicitor would point out that the Garda's belief would have to be reasonably held. For starters, does this Garda have a wife and children? If he doesn't, well then it's case over. I think the prosecution would need to show that the accused knew of his family circumstances, where they lived etc.

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/wicklowpeople/news/man-threatened-to-rape-women-and-burn-homes-27867283.html

when the threats are made the scum bag is of the mind that garda has a wife and child , thats the mindset that the judge should apply.

the garda belief is based on a judgment call. how do you make one of those on the safety of you family ?

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Yeah, whatever...

uncomfortable scenario for you to think about ?

point proven

mynamejeff wrote: »

when the threats are made the scum bag is of the mind that garda has a wife and child , thats the mindset that the judge should apply.

the garda belief is based on a judgment call. how do you make one of those on the safety of you family ?

The section quoted requires that the victim "believes (the threat) will be carried out". The Judge has to consider the mind of the victim.

To be fair, if some scumbag that was already under arrest threathened to rape my child, you can be sure I wouldn't be taking it as a bit of banter

Deleted User wrote: »

The section quoted requires that the victim "believes (the threat) will be carried out". The Judge has to consider the mind of the victim.

aye thats what i said "the garda belief is based on a judgment call. how do you make one of those on the safety of you family ?"

Either way judges arent going to impose a decent sentence on a scumbag for it

Arsemageddon

mynamejeff wrote: »

uncomfortable scenario for you to think about ?

point proven

Not really fella, I just can't be bothered engaging with you because you're just a stereotypical internet hard man.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Not really fella, I just can't be bothered engaging with you because you're just a stereotypical internet hard man.

to quote a noted wit

Yeah whatever

kupus

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Great to know that our taxes are funding the lifestyle of fine upstanding members of the community like malteasers man, he'll go far in life I've no doubt.

he wont, he'll be a raging cnut for everybody around him till the day he drops dead from a heart attack.

welcome to liberal ireland where fookdogs like this scummer is laughing all the way to his dole money that you provide him with.

And no amount of courses and all that boll0x is going to save him and the others around him.

Imagine what his kids are going to be like..... just remember its your kids that will be meeting his. While you congratulate yourself on how you raised your liberal child to be a person thats tolerant and and all those other other warm fuzzy words youre proud of,
this guys kids will be shooting your kid in the back.

thats evolution.

cowboyBuilder

CB19Kevo wrote: »

That's the reality of what the guards have to deal with in this country,being told that there wife and kids will be raped by this individual.Yet people love to have a go at them for being pulled over for speeding or keeping the peace at water meter protests.

Glad i don't have to do there job,having to deal with vermin like that.

Yep, and Sinn Fein would be defending the "victim" here - poor guy was only buying a box of maltesers.

Some areas of dublin, they should just sterilise them via the water supply.

gctest50

kupus wrote: »

he wont, he'll be a raging cnut for everybody around him till the day he drops dead from a heart attack.

welcome to liberal ireland where fookdogs like this scummer is laughing all the way to his dole money that you provide him with.

And no amount of courses and all that boll0x is going to save him and the others around him.

Imagine what his kids are going to be like..... just remember its your kids that will be meeting his. While you congratulate yourself on how you raised your liberal child to be a person thats tolerant and and all those other other warm fuzzy words youre proud of,
this guys kids will be shooting your kid in the back.

thats evolution.

or they might meet up and have babies

But it is not about paying for utilities. It is the fact that the police are being used as enforcers for private interests. I imagine the police know they have better things to do than bother otherwise law abiding citizens for protesting. A lot of guards are struggling too and passed off with cuts etc I'd imagine they have sympathy

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

CB19Kevo wrote: »

That's the reality of what the guards have to deal with in this country,being told that there wife and kids will be raped by this individual.Yet people love to have a go at them for being pulled over for speeding or keeping the peace at water meter protests.

Glad i don't have to do there job,having to deal with vermin like that.

Yep, and Sinn Fein would be defending the "victim" here - poor guy was only buying a box of maltesers.

Some areas of dublin, they should just sterilise them via the water supply.

Add your reply here.
Don't they do this already?

esforum wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

But that's not what the gardai were doing was it? As the judge decided with the nonsense that they pulled on Joan Collins.

Same with targeting residents for special attention afterwards, pure blaggarding

someone being found innocent by virtue of a lack of evidence is not nonsense. well, not as much nonsense as the frivolous claim she is currently taking all the way to the supreme court

its also pretty common for residents to be targeted if they are involved in possible criminal activity.

Or should the Gardai just wait for a phonecall in future?

Add your reply here.
Doesn't join burton have little for doing. Whoever advised her to not leave this is not her friend. Oh poor me I've been kidnapped? Ridiculous, is everyone who is stuck in traffic for an hour kidnapped. Not doing much for female politicians Imo acting like a baby.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I can honestly say I've never seen that prosecuted, and I think any Solicitor would point out that the Garda's belief would have to be reasonably held. For starters, does this Garda have a wife and children? If he doesn't, well then it's case over. I think the prosecution would need to show that the accused knew of his family circumstances, where they lived etc.

Deleted User wrote: »

The section quoted requires that the victim "believes (the threat) will be carried out". The Judge has to consider the mind of the victim.

Actually, the difference is subtle - the judge doesn't have to consider the mind of the victim, but the mind of the perpetrator.

It's an offence where the intent is that the victim believes it will happen. So the judge (or jury) must decide if it was the defendant's intent to make a believable threat, not whether the victim believed it was a real threat.

So even if the Garda had no wife and kids, the deciding factor is whether the defendant's intention was to make a Garda believe his family were at risk (family being fictional or otherwise).

No way that would fly if the guard doesn't have a wife /family. The victim has to believe the danger, which he couldn't if they were fictional.

seamus wrote: »

Actually, the difference is subtle - the judge doesn't have to consider the mind of the victim, but the mind of the perpetrator.

It's an offence where the intent is that the victim believes it will happen. So the judge (or jury) must decide if it was the defendant's intent to make a believable threat, not whether the victim believed it was a real threat

I take your point, but in your standard District Court case, the Judge will never consider the intent of the accused. It's almost taken as a given. You really only see cases involving an analysis of intent and mens rea argued in the higher courts and in cases cited in chapter 1 of criminal law books. If the target knew the threat was completely idle because the circumstances did not exist in which it could happen (eg. I will kill your granny, where I know that the accused doesn't know where my granny lived, and she's now long since dead), I don't see any Court convicting, because it would simply be idle, if very vulgar, speculation.

This is getting a little interesting, will dust down Charleton on Criminal Law!

seamus

melissak wrote: »

No way that would fly if the guard doesn't have a wife /family. The victim has to believe the danger, which he couldn't if they were fictional.

Afraid not. Imagine this on the stand;

"Garda, do you have a wife and children?"
"No"
"So, you were not concerned for the safety of a wife and children?"
"No"
"Did the defendant know this?"
"No"
"So, if you had a wife and children, do you think you would have been concerned for their safety?"
"Yes"

Simple as. The threat doesn't have to be actual. Just believable.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

mynamejeff wrote: »

To be hones if i was that garda and i found that pond scum outside my house i think the only course would be to let a jury decide if his killing was justified.

Fairly sure Id get off too

Yep, it's a little known fact that criminal proceedings in Ireland are decided solely on the principle of 'what would Chuck Norris do?'

Add your reply here.
Isn't everything?

Vallorrous

melissak wrote: »

Add your reply here.
Isn't everything?

Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.

seamus wrote: »

melissak wrote: »

No way that would fly if the guard doesn't have a wife /family. The victim has to believe the danger, which he couldn't if they were fictional.

Afraid not. Imagine this on the stand;

"Garda, do you have a wife and children?"
"No"
"So, you were not concerned for the safety of a wife and children?"
"No"
"Did the defendant know this?"
"No"
"So, if you had a wife and children, do you think you would have been concerned for their safety?"
"Yes"

Simple as. The threat doesn't have to be actual. Just believable.

Add your reply here.
Judge: stop wasting my time, you don't have kids or a wife. The threat was not possible

But he might have a girlfriend, and if scumbag is serious, and finds out he doesn't have a wife or kids but does have a girlfriend, where does that stand then?
I mean he's threathened rape but hasn't said girlfriend, just wife. What happens if he was serious and the guards girlfriend was attacked?

LexieOnRale wrote: »

But he might have a girlfriend, and if scumbag is serious, and finds out he doesn't have a wife or kids but does have a girlfriend, where does that stand then?
I mean he's threathened rape but hasn't said girlfriend, just wife. What happens if he was serious and the guards girlfriend was attacked?

Add your reply here.
I don't know if he had kids etc. It was a scumbag thing to say. I am just arguing the likelihood of prosecution for impossible threats regardless of intent.