Barr Tribunal on Abbeylara

Sparks

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

I personally dont see why the siege was caused by his trust or lack off in the Gardai

I didn't say it caused it, I said it was a contributing factor. Had he not had two incidents of being treated unfairly by the Gardai prior to the siege, what motive would he have had not to trust them? And would that not have enabled a less disasterous resolution?

however no seige could have happened without the firearm therefore allowing him have it was the biggest factor.

That's ridiculous. No siege could have happened without the ERU or the Gardai or Carthy either. Are you going to say that they weren't the biggest factors?

The term I used was 'less lethal' so I dont really see the point your making

The point was that Barr talks about less-lethal, aka less-than-lethal weapons. There the term less-lethal or less-than-lethal has a specific meaning, which you're misinterpreting quite significantly.

Bullets frequently do as they rip your internal organs apart and cause massive internal damage.

In the right part of the body, yes. However, in the right part of the body, so will a baseball bat (a blow to the skull will mangle the brain just as effectively as the largest calibre of firearm, in that you'll be just as dead afterwards).
The term "less lethal" thus makes no sense unless you read it as it was intended to read, namely "less lethal than firearms".

The simple fact is that the report suggests less lethal weapons being used, if your facing a weapon you should not be required to go for less than your facing regardless of what the damage possibility is. Armed Gardai should be allowed perform their duties and if that means shooting a threat that has a gun or a weapon such as a knife then so be it. Its crazy to suggest otherwise and remember, its the criminal that causes the action, armed Gardai arent called for a shoplifter or a fight in Templebar.

The problem here is that you're arguing precisely what Barr argued, but you think you're not. Barr did not require gardai to use more dangerous tactics. he did not say firearms were ruled out. He did not say that shooting a threat was wrong. He did not say that armed gardai were rampaging through our streets. He did say that armed gardai needed more tools in their armoury. He did say that less-than-lethal weapons, had they been available, stood a good chance of success in Abbeylara's specific case. And he did say that those above the men on the ground mismanaged the siege, and that thus the errors took place before Carthy left the house and after Carthy was shot; not the shooting itself.

Eru

Victor wrote:

Do you think the residents of Sheriff Street or Jobstown or West Finglas or whereever have areal option of running away? Especially when they know they will only get a mediocre official response?

No it is not OK. However, I would expect a greater duty of care to a mentall ill person than to a bank robber.

A, I cover one of those areas so dont accuse us of a mediocre response unless you wish to go to PM about specific incidences and be ready for some harsh truths about the area and society as a whole. You yourself dont wish to offer additional manpower or equipment to Gardai as it is.

B, They have as much chance to run away as anyone else, are you know trying to seperate society into classes? Middle and upper class dont get mugged or assaulted? If your faced with a mugger, regardless of where you live, you can run away as well as anyone else in the same situation. If you see a person with a knife you can run away or hide in your house regardless of where you live. Location has no bearing unless you wish to speak about Garda manpower and by all means, ask McDowell for more Gardai in your area. Ask for some decent cars and equipment while your at it.

C, There you go again, you expect a mental illness patient to be treated with a greater care, how and why? A guns a gun regardless of who holds it. I said already, you stand a better chance of negotiating with your average bank robber than someone in this scenario. Exactly how can we provide greater care to someone pointing and firing a gun at us without motive? PLease, if your going to state this then offer a viable method, dont just expect and demand what cannot be delivered. I dont have a big 'S' on my chest.

Sparks wrote:

I didn't say it caused it, I said it was a contributing factor. Had he not had two incidents of being treated unfairly by the Gardai prior to the siege, what motive would he have had not to trust them? And would that not have enabled a less disasterous resolution?

He was mentally ill and paranoid, is that not enough reason? Do all murder victms, etc do something to result in their murders? No. People are mad, people are sick and people do ****ed up things without reason. He had no reason to begin this seige. Also, stop satating he was for a fact mistreated, there is more evidence to the contrary that supports this claim. witnesses and those close to him have stated he never mentioned being hurt, in fact the person that gave him a lift from the station stated he never once mentioned being physically hurt. Hear say should not be used and is not for a reason. Point 1 of why Barr is a sham, using hearsay evidence to make a decision.

Sparks wrote:

That's ridiculous. No siege could have happened without the ERU or the Gardai or Carthy either. Are you going to say that they weren't the biggest factors?

No they werent, the seige began before the ERU arrived, Carthy on his own without a weapon is a sick man sitting in his house, not a seige and had he not been armed he would not have been shot, he would have been taken in for treatment. The gun was the biggest factor and therefore why he had it is a big question. Dont ignore it because it shows the Superintendent made a good call and the doctor a bad one.

Sparks wrote:

The point was that Barr talks about less-lethal, aka less-than-lethal weapons. There the term less-lethal or less-than-lethal has a specific meaning, which you're misinterpreting quite significantly.

No Im not, less-lethal always means less lethal compared to a firearm however Barr states that the Gardai could have used them and had they been available, should have used them. Thats my point, Gardai facing a gun should use tazers instead of firearms is a very wrong and dangerous statement. Part 2 of Barr being a sham, not a single expert witness agrees with this statement. Not a single expert witness even suggested attempting such a thing yet Barr decided that an object not available, never used in this way and one he has never seen nevermind used, was the best option. Why and how did he reach this decision? You would be a bloody mess on the ground before you got within tazing distance of an armed threat.

Sparks wrote:

In the right part of the body, yes. However, in the right part of the body, so will a baseball bat (a blow to the skull will mangle the brain just as effectively as the largest calibre of firearm, in that you'll be just as dead afterwards).

Im amazed at this, the fact that a baseball bat RARELY has this effect compared to a gun having this effect in the MAJORITY of occasions seems to not register with you. The fact that a baseball bat to the leg will not be fatal ever but a bullet could and has been fatal. A blunt object requires a lot of human strenght and can never, I repeat never, get the same speed as a bullet. A blunt object cannot pierce the skin nor pass through the human body, bullets are designed to do so. You will not die from a single baseball bat hit to your arm or your back or your leg. Possible, in rare circumstances a single strike to the head or torso may be fatal.

Sparks wrote:

The problem here is that you're arguing precisely what Barr argued, but you think you're not. Barr did not require gardai to use more dangerous tactics. he did not say firearms were ruled out. He did not say that shooting a threat was wrong. He did not say that armed gardai were rampaging through our streets. He did say that armed gardai needed more tools in their armoury. He did say that less-than-lethal weapons, had they been available, stood a good chance of success in Abbeylara's specific case. And he did say that those above the men on the ground mismanaged the siege, and that thus the errors took place before Carthy left the house and after Carthy was shot; not the shooting itself.

I am aware of this and I did not argue this. What I am arguing is point 3, that less lethal stood a good chance of success here, there is no evidence to support this stance, all the expert witnesses stated the opposite to this. You are wrong on 1 point, stated that shooting IN THIS SCENARIO was justified because they had no tazers, my point is that facing a gun, tazer or no tazer, should be met with a gun. If they had tazers available Barr would, by his own reasoning, have found the Gardai at fault for not using them. Again I say it, thats a crazy finding.

If this happened tomorrow Barr would have found them at fault for not using less lethal but armed Gardai, in fact all Gardai facing an armed man who is firing shots at them should be allowed shoot and kill the threat.

Im not saying this is a good thing, Im not saying that the death was a good thing, I dont consider anyones death to be a happy occasion and I am firmly against the death penalty. what Im saying is that in the cold harsh reality its the only viable option. In these scenarios its a case of killing him or him killing you and if the Gardai get killed then he is open to moving and killing innocent people. Should the day arrive when a less lethal option becomes viable then fine, lets get it and use it, but that day is not here and all the options available are not adequate to tackle an armed threat.

As for management, maybe for another day but I dont think they handled the scenario badly, perhaps theres lessons to be learnt in the sense of training and planning but under the circumstances I think Barr chose a scapegoat as he knew it would cause the least ripples.

By blaming management but not the ground Gardai he was trying to keep the pro-Garda side happy but giving something to those that were anti-Garda and more importantly, justifying 4 years and 18 million while not causing much damage as the senior officers are all very senior and either retired or close to it.

Its also very strange that some of his recommendations are in place for the past number of years. How long has pepper spray been available to the ERU? I know the training he recommends was in when I joined and that was before this event.

civdef

He did say that less-than-lethal weapons, had they been available, stood a good chance of success in Abbeylara's specific case.

He is wrong, and from reading the report, this seems to be something he has decided on personally (specifically mentioning Taser), directly contrary to the advice of the experts quoted. A very strange choice to make.