Year-long Garda 'no arrest' policy in Erris condemned

by MacE Sun Oct 14, 2007 15:26

Stop feeding them, Seán. You twisted criminal mastermind, you.

by Perspective Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:18

Below is a shortened list of Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, remember this is the type of activity Sean Sean is posting "advice" on how to evade prosecution .

Distribution or display in a public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene

Riot

Violent disorder

Affray

Blackmail, extortion and demanding money with menaces

Assault with intent to cause bodily harm or commit an indictable offence

Assault or obstruction of a peace officer

Attacks on emergency service personnel

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/ind....html

by CL Sat Oct 13, 2007 22:37

A very civilised scenario Sean has just "painted" how he can marry that scenario with
" For example, if you are a Rossport resident and have a family, the rights of your family are superior to ALL LAW, and it is your lawful duty to protect them and this outweighs any other lawful duty you might have." .
Maybe Sean would explain to us how this defense would work in in reality.
Here is a plausible scenario............
I am a native of Erris, and I honestly believe (but have no facts to show that belief to be correct) that the corrib project will cause serious harm to my "family" so I decide I will prevent the project from going ahead.
I start my campaign by damaging machinery belonging to contractors working on the project, I also block the roads leading to the refinery site, I undertake A lock-on at the deposit site where the peat is been deposited, I refuse to obey a member of the Gardai when ordered to move.
If this approach doesn't work, and the refinery is completed I proceed to acquire a explosive device and blow up the refinery, problem solved! and all totally legal because I believed I was protecting my family.
Finally there is just one thing I cant understand in all this, if the defense of lawful excuse is so clearly defined in our constitution why was the chief sentenced to 3 Months in prison, and the shramore protestors given community service?
did they not know of the magic bullet "lawful excuse"

by Seán Ryan Sat Oct 13, 2007 21:32

Here's the scenario I've painted. There is no other interpretation. Anything else is pure conjecture and has nothing whatsoever to do with what I've said.

Garda: "Move along sir, or I'll be forced to arrest you for behaviour leading to a possible breach of the peace!"

Citizen: "Officer, I have lawful excuse to be here, I'm protecting my family. Now either leave me alone or arrest me."

See?

No violence, no vigilantism, no breaking the law whatsoever. That was the point. One does not break the law when one has lawful excuse. Head buried in the ground? More like it's been rammed up your arse.

by CL Sat Oct 13, 2007 20:58

Sean would realise, if he had a sufficient grasp of language, that there is a difference between "The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority" and Vigilantism.
I am not disputing the fact that the "family" is viewed as a " primary and fundamental unit group of Society" but where in the constitution does it say you can do as you wish if you use that provision as an excuse?.

I never before realised we had an indigenous population of Ostriches in Ireland but seemingly we have (I hope CL will not be too hurt if I choose not to respond to the rest of his/her prattle.)
If you cant win a debate with logic/fact then run or bury your head is an option, but not a practice I would partake in myself!

by jd Sat Oct 13, 2007 20:01

"There were no arrests. That was part of our strategy; we did not want to facilitate anyone down there with a route to martyrdom" - Garda Review
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80229

by Seán Ryan Sat Oct 13, 2007 19:32

From Bunreach Na hÉireann - Article 41

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

There's the proof of what I said regarding the family.

I'm not resorting to personal abuse, I'm trying to prevent someone who doesn't have a clue from practicing self-abuse in public and in a forum where news and information are to be posted - not half-baked fantasies.

I have no fears about readers misinterpreting what I've written, particularly in the oaf-like manner it has been misinterpreted (spun) thus far.

Far from preaching that folks should break the law, I'm encouraging people to know and to use it. Please note also that my original post was to do with the offence of public order and to point out that public order recognises lawful excuse. Whether the excuse of protecting one's family is lawful or not is for the Courts to decide, and I'd say Shell's long and international record speaks for itself in regard to this. No offence meant to CL, s/he's just a hard working troll who doesn't know any better and who thinks that constantly moving the goalposts in an argument will mitigate the original act of stupidity. Sometimes this works, but when the stupidiy increases, it has a tendency to confirm the initial diagnosis. I hope CL will not be too hurt if I choose not to respond to the rest of his/her prattle.

Don't feed the trolls.

by CL Sat Oct 13, 2007 18:14

I wont pretend to be a legal expert,(I am not), but Sean resorting to personal abuse may be an admission of his error.
My fear is that gullible individuals might take Sean's "advice" as gospel, and proceed to do something drastic assuming that they have "lawful excuse" for so doing.
Maybe Sean could/should be prosecuted for incitement, as he is encouraging people to break the law?
Oh, and I hope this doesn't constitute BB chat, but Sean WHY should I have to "prove otherwise" It was you who posted the original claim, you prove that the lawful excuse of protecting your family is an immunity from prosecution in cases where the risk to said family isn't a proven fact!

by Seán Ryan Sat Oct 13, 2007 16:17

When one truncates or indeed sections a sentence to twist what has been said, one is either twisted or a scumbag.

Pick one.

And for what it is worth, the rights of the family are superior to all positive law. To post otherwise is either dishonest or stupid. Prove otherwise or STFU.

by CL Sat Oct 13, 2007 13:44

Sean suggests I should be sectioned because he suspects I have a literacy problem.
My point is that for someone to post a statement saying "the rights of your family are superior to all law, and it is your lawful duty to protect them and this outweighs any other lawful duty you might have." is a irresponsible act.
I suggest people might consider the ramifications of the advice they post claiming it as a indisputable fact of law, (which it is not).
So without stooping to personal insults, maybe it isn't me who needs the "Nice tight fitting jacket and rubber walls ".
Maybe people should think before they issue "advice" so liberally!

by Seán Ryan Sat Oct 13, 2007 03:16

I think CL might have a problem with literacy.

I said that lawful excuse is required if one is accused of breaching the public order act. Reasonable force can only be used when defending oneself or one's family. If CL considers stabbing someone to be reasonable when one's life is not in immediate danger, he should be locked up for his own good.

by CL Fri Oct 12, 2007 19:14

Sean Ryan wrote "if you are a Rossport resident and have a family, the rights of your family are superior to "all law", and it is your lawful duty to protect them and this outweighs any other lawful duty you might have.
I hope no gullible fool believes that bullshit, if I as a local resident walks up to a member of the Gardai or a shell employee and knife them in the belly because I believe I am protecting my family by doing so, your reasoning would suggest I would be correct and lawful in doing so.
Is that what your saying or am I missing something here?

by Seán Ryan Fri Oct 12, 2007 18:52

With regard to public order.

If a Garda puts his hand on you without cautioning you it's assault. You may either attempt to have him charged (good luck), charge and prosecute him yourself, or indeed defend yourself (prepare for a visit to the hospital). You may of course do nothing...

If a Garda cautions you and you fail to comply, you should be arrested, not assaulted. If force must be used to secure your arrest it must be reasonable. If the Garda uses reasonable force to remove you from where you are trespassing, he should be doing so upon the complaint of whoever is in charge of the property. If he removes you from an area where he feels you might be about to cause a breach of the peace and you return, it is an arrestable offence and the Garda should arrest you or caution you again, that's his duty and your right. Please note, for lone protesters, if you are in a place where there are only members of the Gardaí, you cannot cause a breach of the peace, there is case law to back that up (it is not supposed to be possible to inspire or incite the Gardaí to act in an unlawful manner).

The golden rule with regard to public order and trespass etc. is to have lawful excuse and to be aware of what this excuse is. For example, if you are a Rossport resident and have a family, the rights of your family are superior to all law, and it is your lawful duty to protect them and this outweighs any other lawful duty you might have. Always give the Garda your lawful excuse, even if he doesn't ask for it.

How many cautions have been handed out in the last year in Rossport?

The gardaí are entitled to move protesters (though this is not covered by the public order act - see my link below for info about the use of force) so long as they neither use excessive force nor cause injury. This too is ignored.

The fact that the Gardaí have admitted that they will not use the power of arrest is an admission that they will not perform either their duty and that they are in violation of their oath of service.

Here's the law with regard to the use of force:- http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec....html

by MacE Fri Oct 12, 2007 17:56

It's legal for the guards to occasionally exercise their discretion and not arrest people. What's illegal is to order guards not to arrest people and to use violence instead of due process.

by jd Fri Oct 12, 2007 13:30

Minister for Foreign Affairs,Mr Dermot Ahern T.D, Expresses His Concern for Protesters

"I am gravely concerned by news this morning that the use of physical force against unarmed civilians, who have committed their lives to the path of non-violence, and who are simply exercising the basic right of freedom of expression in a peaceful manner, is unacceptable and deeply shocking. All people of conscience throughout the world and all countries, must condemn the use of force against unarmed civilians, demonstrating peacefully and demand the utmost restraint.

Ireland, like the EU, expresses its solidarity with the people and its admiration for the courageous citizens who are exercising their rights of peaceful demonstration."

by Bill - none Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:25

Just to confirm this is a joke, right?

You have said

"On hundreds of occasions over the past 12 months, local people and supporters have obstructed traffic, have repeatedly failed to comply with directions given by gardai, have trespassed on Shell's refinery site and have broken the law in other ways as part of their tactic of civil disobedience. Despite this, almost nobody has been arrested charged with these offences."

and

"What we have here is an illegal by-passing of due process....."

So the tactic of civil disobedience and law breaking is being defeated by the illegal tactic of not arresting you for your tactics? While I don’t for a moment accept that it is illegal for the Guards not to arrest someone who might be breaking the law, the above argument even if true has got to be one of the stupidest appeals for sympathy I have ever heard. “Those nasty guards are letting us break the law and thus ruining our dying campaign“