# 27 convictions, no angel?



## micmclo (23 Oct 2010)

Resisting arrest, breaking a garda's jaw, not completing community service?
No angel is correct



> A 21-year-old man who claims he was beaten by four gardaí when he was 18 has admitted he has 27 previous convictions.
> Owen Gaffney was being cross-examined on the third day of the trial of four gardaí accused of assaulting him while his mother was locked in a bathroom.
> Mr Gaffney told defence counsel Hugh Hartnett that he was 'no angel' during his teenage years and admitted having a conviction for assaulting a garda whose jaw was broken.
> But he denied there was history of violence towards gardaí.





> Owen Gaffney said he served a prison sentence after he failed to complete a community service order. He also admitted resisting arrest in the past.




Do you know what the word conviction means?
If you were in court many times and clocked up 27 convictions would you know?


> He admitted that he had a total of 27 previous convictions but denied deliberately leaving this out of his first statement to the Garda Ombudsman.
> He said he told them he had been arrested a number of times but 'didn't actually know what the word conviction meant'.



I'd say many of you have been following this.
When I first read about it I thought it what was awful what happened the lad
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1021/garda.html

So my question to AAM, did he deserve a beating from four gardaí?
As the more I learn about this case the more I reckon he did!


----------



## Complainer (23 Oct 2010)

micmclo said:


> So my question to AAM, did he deserve a beating from four gardaí?
> As the more I learn about this case the more I reckon he did!



I cannot comprehend how anyone could consider wanting to have the Gardai going round in gangs dishing out their own form of 'rough justice'.


----------



## Purple (23 Oct 2010)

+1 but I don't believe his story so I don't think it happened.


----------



## MandaC (23 Oct 2010)

It seems a very odd story.  I don't believe him either.

Zero sympathy.


----------



## Ancutza (23 Oct 2010)

> I cannot comprehend how anyone could consider wanting to have the Gardai  going round in gangs dishing out their own form of 'rough justice'.



+1.  Totally agree.  In this case I believe the lad is making it up but I _do _believe that the guards dish-out a few digs from time to time.

When I was in school there was a member of our 'band of brothers' who later went on to become a guard. Now serving in the southeast.  He once proudly told us how they got a report of a burglary in progress, arrived at the scene and got physically stuck-in to the guy they found climbing out a window with a stereo system.  'A good hiding' was how he described it.  I got the distinct impression that he wasn't just alluding to reasonable force in effecting the arrest.


----------



## Ash 22 (23 Oct 2010)

The guards would be very silly if they did beat him up as they should know the consequences for themselves. He's certainly no angel and far from it but you just cannot do what they're allegedly suppose to have done. Mind you years ago we all heard of the famous Lugs Brannigan who had his way of dealing with louts which seemingly worked but then I suppose at that stage you had'nt the same level of violent criminals as we seem to have now.


----------



## mf1 (23 Oct 2010)

The DPP obviously feels there is enough evidence to warrant a prosecution. 

The victim may be no angel but we are talking here about An Gardai Siochana - the keepers of the peace. It is not good enough that they decide to mete out their own form of justice. On anyone. Angel or not.

mf


----------



## mugga (23 Oct 2010)

I don't believe him-he has a track record so I don't believe him at all.  He would have been better off he was disciplined better as a child. I feel sorry for the gardai involved--why does the law always seem to err on the side of those who misbehave?? Is there no such thing as innocent until proven guilty for the  gardai?


----------



## Yorrick (23 Oct 2010)

Like all criminal cases the DPP has made a dcision and he feels that the Gardai have a case to answer. It is up to a jury to decide if the evidence is beyond all reasonable doubt. If they think so they will convict.


----------



## z107 (23 Oct 2010)

I would take the word of any one over a garda.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2010)

I dont fully believe either side of the story. Overall, I dont agree with guards using violence on suspected or known criminals. In saying that, Ive little sympathy with a scumbag who at his tender age has already clocked up 27 convictions. He chooses not to live by the rules of civilised society - so really I dont see what he has to complain about, he has chosen his path.


----------



## potnoodler (23 Oct 2010)

pretending to have a warrant and attaking someone in their bed, not guards I prefer to have , sounds like their should be in the Provos


----------



## Pique318 (24 Oct 2010)

OK, the 'victim' was a bit of a scumbag with 27 convictions...I agree,he doesn't deserve sympathy. If he got a kicking, then so be it.

HOWEVER...

It was the Garda Siochana that did it. 
This is not on. These are supposed to be the people that arrest and detain, not mete out punishment. They are the Law (not in a Judge Dredd kinda way), not the Judiciary.

Personally, I'd probably congratulate them on a job well done...just don't expect the Judiciary to. 

They will go down (in whatever form) and rightly so, as Law and Order are paramount, and if we allow this behaviour to continue, then we're in facist state territory.

However, I do think that the law as it is, is slanted in favour of the defendent. Personally, I'd love a return to the days when scumbags feared the cops in a Lugs Branigan kinda way.

It's 2010 though and as a modern Democracy (sic) the cops deserve their inevitable punishment.


----------



## Black Sheep (24 Oct 2010)

It seems to me that there is gross exaggeration on both sides. Could the guards be that foolish to put themselves in that situation as they knew very well who they were dealing with. 

Either way it's not good for the morale at the moment. They seem to be getting very bad press


----------



## Marietta (24 Oct 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I would take the word of any one over a garda.


 

Yeah none of us will forget what happened in Donegal.


----------



## shnaek (26 Oct 2010)

Pique318 said:


> OK, the 'victim' was a bit of a scumbag with 27 convictions...I agree,he doesn't deserve sympathy. If he got a kicking, then so be it.


If 27 convictions makes 'a bit of a scumbag' how many convictions makes a complete scumbag? Or does it depend on the seriousness of the offence?

I'd be inclined to believe the Gardai over someone with 27 convictions, with some weight being put on the Gardai's individual record. The Gardai have a thankless job - arresting thugs and criminals only to see them out on the street the next day, middle finger extended to society because they know they are winning.


----------



## Yorrick (26 Oct 2010)

Every profession/occupation needs independent regulation. BankersDoctors, Teachers, Solicitors, Journalists Gardai etc. The vast majority of people will behave themselves but there has to be a process in place that will identify wrongdoers in any job. To say that you would trust anyone else over the word of a Garda says more about you than about the thousands of gardai that do their job. In the past gardai who broke the law ended up in prison, The cases were investigated by gardai, evidence against them were given by gardai etc. 
Every sector of society have been found to have a wrong element in it. Thats human nature. It is how we respond to it that is important. No cover ups ( as if that would happen in Ireland)


----------



## Mpsox (26 Oct 2010)

The trial has collapsed

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1026/garda.html


----------



## Purple (26 Oct 2010)

It's hard to know who to think less of; the petty criminals who do so much to damage their society and the quality of life of their neighbours or the police who are so utterly unprofessional, confrontational and self-serving.


----------



## Betsy Og (26 Oct 2010)

Re this case - if they indulged in a premeditated assault then you cant have that. On the other hand if they got called to an affray outside a chipper I think they'd be well entitled to belt first and ask questions later - call it self-defence or whatever else but its a dangerous job trying to contain (let alone correct) the scum thats around these times, and where theres no respect then how can it be other than the guards having to get physical as well?

Most other states arm their police, we dont, I think we should. Lets not overreact and totally hand over the country to the lawbreakers.

I loved the line, in the book the Gangs of New York, where some police chief or other city official was quoted as saying (roughly) "There's more law in the end of a nightwatchmans baton, than the end of Supreme Court Judges pen". Never a truer word spoken.

While I was appalled by the Donegal incidents, I dont think the force is corrupt, and I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Lets face it they are the only thing between normal citizens and career criminals, think of that when you want to write them off.


----------



## gianni (26 Oct 2010)

Purple said:


> It's hard to know who to think less of; the petty criminals who do so much to damage their society and the quality of life of their neighbours *or the police who are so utterly unprofessional, confrontational and self-serving.*



Thankfully in this country this view is very much


----------



## shnaek (27 Oct 2010)

Purple said:


> It's hard to know who to think less of; the petty criminals who do so much to damage their society and the quality of life of their neighbours or the police who are so utterly unprofessional, confrontational and self-serving.


Was this guy a petty criminal? 27 convictions? That means how many crimes gotten away with? Has to be at least a factor of 4. Our laws are too skewed in favour of the criminal element, and most citizens know this. It's only when someone like Manuela Riedo is killed that we get a bit serious. Why do we wait until someone is raped or dead?


----------

