Armed?

metman

Would you as a Garda (current or aspirational) want to carry a firearm routinely and be prepared to kill in the line of duty?

TheNog

As a uniformed member I would not like to carry a firearm because I don;t feel it is necessary, yet. There will be a time when we will have to carry weapons and when that time comes I will be the first to stand in line and will do what I have to but only if it is absolutely required.

Fyr.Fytr

Tazer then firearm after all other methods exausted or if there was aserious threat to life eg person firing etc.

opti76

yes id carry a firearm and yes if the situation decreed id take a life. once it was a legal action and a just one.

Dr_MaSoN

I'd carry a Taser and possibly a Firearm. I'd use deadly force as a last resort.

id say i would still be hesitant to use a firearm at present.

Mr Jinx

dont think there is any need for gardai to carry firearms yet, but i would support having more armed units patroling for back up should the need arise.

eroo

I'd carry a Taser and possibly a Firearm. I'd use deadly force as a last resort.

As a Garda hopeful,I wouldn't want to carry a lethal firearm as it is a huge responsibility for both you and your colleagues on top of an already difficult job.However,a Taser I would have no hesitation carrying.

http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/obituaries/unsung-hero-saved-authority-of-garda-1386460.html
Off topic,but it just goes to show that firearms aren't always a great response!

ojewriej

Coming from the country where policemen are routinely armed, I always found it very weird that Guards don't have guns. Especially that my da was a cop, and we always had a pistol at home, at times upgraded to an assaulkt rifle, so ever since I remember cops always come with guns..

Having said that, now when I'm applying myself, I'd actually preffer not to carry one. Firstly, because i don't think there is a need for it (yet), and secondly beacause there is a lot of responsibilities when you are in charge of a gun, which i'd rather avoid if possible.

But when I'm on a beat, i would like to have a taser or pepper spray. I don't think ASP is enough, plus it being a high impact weapon, i believe that, contrary to what papers are trying to tell us, ASP is much more dangerous than spray or taser.

Eru

ojewriej wrote: »

Coming from the country where policemen are routinely armed, I always found it very weird that Guards don't have guns. Especially that my da was a cop, and we always had a pistol at home, at times upgraded to an assaulkt rifle, so ever since I remember cops always come with guns...

My wife is from fa oreign, weird place and its the same for her, cops without guns is just strange to her. She has told me before that foreigners coming here have one of two opin ions about us because were unarmed: A, were a joke and cant really do anything wihtout a gun anyway or B, We must be psychotic hard bastards with fists like hammers!

FGR

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

My wife is from fa oreign, weird place and its the same for her, cops without guns is just strange to her. She has told me before that foreigners coming here have one of two opin ions about us because were unarmed: A, were a joke and cant really do anything wihtout a gun anyway or B, We must be psychotic hard bastards with fists like hammers!

Why do I have a feeling it's more of the former? My OH is also from a far away land and cannot understand/does not like the fact that we're not armed. She also mentioned how some foreign lads may see us poorly as we're not trained/trusted/"respected" enough to carry a firearm like in other Police Forces.

It's amazing the impression it can give..especially as Garda training takes four times longer than most other forces in the world.

mc-panda

I sit neatly on the unarmed side of the fence.

To reiterate reasons i have stated (inappropriately) in another thread pertaining to Garda uniforms:

(i) armed Gardai present as a more "legitimate" target to armed criminals. Hence, I believe arming members would result in increased numbers of Gardai being shot.

(ii) There is still a very strong post-colonial hangover in Ireland. Arming the Gardai would serve as a reminder to people of The Troubles and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As a service which requires public support to effect its duties, arming Gardai would most likely alienate a lot of people, breed distrust and impair public cooperation/support.

(iii) Arming Gardai would not enhance their ability to combat crime in the vast majority of cases. Even with the current spike in gun violence here, criminals are not shooting people in front of police. It's done in a clandestine fashion. Thus, having armed Gardai won't combat this any better. The Gardai would have to be present during the commissioning of the crime to intervene.

I support fully, however, the drive for Regional Response Units. i would further support the idea of Gardai having access to firearms (even whilst in uniform) if needed. However, these could be secured in vehicles until required. The notion of all uniformed members carrying "on the hip", so to speak, is something I disagree with entirely.

In any case, are there not currently c.4,000 members trained in firearms? If so, this equates to one third of the service. That's pretty good.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'm not a guard, I'm a soldier so I guess I might have some opinion on this.

I recently read that a guard in this country receives 29hrs of training on firearm's before being qualified to carry out armed duties - that to me is a complete joke and until thats addressed I'd say NO.

Also, after Abbeylara if I was a policeman I'd be reluctant to do anything more with my hands than scratch my arse with them, let alone carry a gun or use my baton.

Although I've never seen them in use, I think the Tazer is probably the way to go for the most part.

Paulzx

The last post sort of sums up my feelings on the subject. From speaking to guards who have the basic firearms course done i was quite shocked to hear that there didnt seem to be any emphasis on tactical training on a basic firearms course. I'm not talking about advanced eru stuff but basic rules on how to move and cover each other. Simple stuff like how to search prisoners whilst they're being covered with a weapon.

Teaching someone the basics of cleaning, firing and the workings of a weapon and becoming profficient at target shooting does not in my opinion qualify them to handle a weapon safely in operational situations

Eru

Paulzx wrote: »

The last post sort of sums up my feelings on the subject. From speaking to guards who have the basic firearms course done i was quite shocked to hear that there didnt seem to be any emphasis on tactical training on a basic firearms course. I'm not talking about advanced eru stuff but basic rules on how to move and cover each other. Simple stuff like how to search prisoners whilst they're being covered with a weapon.

Teaching someone the basics of cleaning, firing and the workings of a weapon and becoming profficient at target shooting does not in my opinion qualify them to handle a weapon safely in operational situations

all true but you also need to appreciate that detectives that carry guns are not supposed to take then out for any other purpose but to actually shoot someone. They are not supposed to cover anyone or anything. Its a self defence weapon only as a last resort. Literally when its shoot or be shot.

Tactics therefore is not the issue at present. However I agree that the training would need to reflect the use if all Gardai were armed.

Paulzx

I understand what you are saying. It is not normal for detectives to produce their weapons here in the same way as plenty of other countries. However i do beg to differ on your point the gun is only produced to shoot someone. There is no doubt that if you produce a gun you must be willing to shoot someone.

I will run a plausible scenario past you were basic concepts of gun tactics should be known

- A bank robbery is in progress in Dublin. Two armed detectives are patrolling close by and arrive on scene as and armed robber is leaving the bank brandishing a shotgun. The gardai leave their vehicle and challenge the robber with their weapons drawn. The robber does not point his weapon at anyone and quickly drops it when instructed. The gardai are still on their own as this has all happened quickly.


My point is that at this stage the robber is on the ground and will have to be approached and searched. From speaking to gardai i know basic procedures like the gard who is searching the suspect not blocking the other gards line of fire is not officially taught on the firearms course. I know its only cop on and any experienced detetective will know this but do you get my point.

Eru

Paulzx wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. It is not normal for detectives to produce their weapons here in the same way as plenty of other countries. However i do beg to differ on your point the gun is only produced to shoot someone. There is no doubt that if you produce a gun you must be willing to shoot someone.

I will run a plausible scenario past you were basic concepts of gun tactics should be known

- A bank robbery is in progress in Dublin. Two armed detectives are patrolling close by and arrive on scene as and armed robber is leaving the bank brandishing a shotgun. The gardai leave their vehicle and challenge the robber with their weapons drawn. The robber does not point his weapon at anyone and quickly drops it when instructed. The gardai are still on their own as this has all happened quickly.


My point is that at this stage the robber is on the ground and will have to be approached and searched. From speaking to gardai i know basic procedures like the gard who is searching the suspect not blocking the other gards line of fire is not officially taught on the firearms course. I know its only cop on and any experienced detetective will know this but do you get my point.

I agree with you Paul but in Ireland people still believe that a harsh tone of voice is enough and therefore the reasoning as regards guns remains that its only when your in direct danger of being shot.

Were not supposed to keep the guns out or point them once the direct threat has been eliminated.

your right however and I know even the trainers are tired of wasting their breath trying to get the same point across but then again, when has common sense stopped the court of public opinion and managements decisions??? remember, many people think shooting someone in the little toe as they shoot at your head is perfectly viable and anymore than that is police brutality!

eroo

Tactical Training is being introduced is it not?With the new ranges built it should be easier.

Also,like the ARW puts well trained people back into regular Defence Forces units,I believe the ERU and RSU's will help by putting experienced detectives back into DDU's?

Paulzx

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

many people think shooting someone in the little toe as they shoot at your head is perfectly viable and anymore than that is police brutality!

Anyone that has handled weapons knows that shooting to wound in the heat of the moment, especially with a hangun is an impossible task. Unfortunately, most of the general publics exposure to firearms comes from hollywood where cowboys with sixshooters hit someone between the eyes from one hundred yards:D.

I still don't think that their is a requirement yet for uniformed gardai to be permanently armed. Hopefully, this will continue but those that are armed should be properly trained

kowloon

Do any of you think all gardai being given firearms would kickstart an arms race?

Could the fact that Tazers are "non lethal" encourage their overuse with possibly fatal consequences? (Would you be more likely to use force when armed with a tazer compared to today when you have to commit close in and are more at risk yourself?)

Just curious what yer views are.

CLADA

kowloon wrote: »

Could the fact that Tazers are "non lethal" encourage their overuse with possibly fatal consequences?

Not sure what you mean there

Taser like all new technology will come under scrutiny from different organisations. Governments, civil liberty groups, medical practitioners and of course police.
The hundreds of reports that have been compiled both by taser and independent bodies are finding that the device is not a killer and is in fact saving the lives of many people who may otherwise have been shot by police.

In general any injuries associated with taser are secondary injuries, i.e. injuries sustained while falling to the ground on being incapacitated by the device.

The guidelines in this country ensure the weapon will not be overused or abused. It is used in conjunction with conventional firearms and gives officers here a less lethal option.

depending on the circumstances the officer armed with the taser may have the opportunity to incapacitate an armed individual who is not posing an immediate threat to life. However, should circumstances change and the individual become an immediate threat to life or the device fails, then his colleague with the firearm will take action.

The device has been in use by ERU since Sept 07 and has been used succesfully twice. Overuse at the moment would not appear to be an issue.

Paulzx

Taser definetly bridges a gap between the use of firearms and unarmed. The eru seem to have got it right in their usage of it.


As an aside, has anyone seen the video footage of an illegal immigrant being tasered in an airport in Canada ( i think it was canada ) last year. They guy was unarmed but was roaring and shouting for a while. A lot of confusion and seemed to be language problems. They hit him with a taser and then activated it a couple more times. Ended up killing him. Complete over reaction. Seen the vid a good while ago now.Can't remember where it was posted. Not a pretty sight

CLADA

I've seen the footage from Canada and its hard to see why they felt the need to use taser.

As yet the death of the man has not been attributed to the device, if you watch again and note his behaviour, he displays all the characteristics of excited delirium and then note how he is restrained by airport police, at one point the full weight of three men are on his upper torso, these could also have been the main factors in his death.

kowloon

Paulzx wrote: »

Taser definetly bridges a gap between the use of firearms and unarmed. The eru seem to have got it right in their usage of it.


As an aside, has anyone seen the video footage of an illegal immigrant being tasered in an airport in Canada ( i think it was canada ) last year. They guy was unarmed but was roaring and shouting for a while. A lot of confusion and seemed to be language problems. They hit him with a taser and then activated it a couple more times. Ended up killing him. Complete over reaction. Seen the vid a good while ago now.Can't remember where it was posted. Not a pretty sight

Seen that one, that's the kind of overuse I mean.
I know it's not happening here now, but years down the line could minor situations where Gardai today would be hesitant to use force, due to risk of injury to either party, end up with overuse of the tazer?

eroo

kowloon wrote: »

Seen that one, that's the kind of overuse I mean.
I know it's not happening here now, but years down the line could minor situations where Gardai today would be hesitant to use force, due to risk of injury to either party, end up with overuse of the tazer?

You could say the same about ASP's.Fact is,it will always be up to the individual Garda whether he/she wishes to use that level of force.As police officers,they have to be trusted to do so.

the locust

RE: the guy being tasered in the airport that died.
He was a big guy with a big coat on, seemed to have language problem, and had been fecked around by the airport staff, making him angry. I know taser will effect through a jacket etc... but it just seemed like he was definitely tasered more than once maybe even repeatedly.

I know this incident could have been handled better... but,

If one system doesn't work, you shouldn't keep trying that system. They should have upped the level of force to the baton. RCMP have ASPs (& also Glocks) they would have put him down with an ASP no worries, he may have even became compliant if he saw batons or pistols. Thats what they are there for.

I was just cringing and pulling my hair out when the repeatedly shocked him. It seemed like it was sprung on him out of the blue with little warning.

Eru

As far as I am aware there is no issue with zapping someone more than once with a tazer. I have seen footage where someone is zapped again and again until they are complaint.

What do you do? Try something else? If Tazer isnt working I dont think he would have been effected that much by an ASP which only leaves shooting him!

Another point is that spray and batons you need to be closer which increases the risk against you. Tazer has the great advantage of distance without being shot.

Its the same with any weapon. Hit him with an ASP and he might go down or alternatively it might hounce of him without flinching which means another and maybe another strike. No weapon is completely non lethal, they can all kill but its how often compared to the alternatives. Pros and cons.

As for an arms race, using that logic you should take away ASPS and criminals wouldthen stop using baseball bats, tazers, knives and guns. That, I dont think is realistic.

FGR

We wouldn't have an arms race - as the wrong side is already armed to the point where they really don't worry about the uniform police.

kowloon

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Another point is that spray and batons you need to be closer which increases the risk against you. Tazer has the great advantage of distance without being shot.

Would the lack of risk though (compared to dealing with someone at arms length) result in people getting tazered for mouthing off or something similarly unworthy of electrical stimulation?

I personally believe it is a bit retarded to not have an armed police force in a country that has been littered with IRA weapons for decades, was looking for someone who could argue against it though.

CLADA

kowloon wrote: »

Would the lack of risk though (compared to dealing with someone at arms length) result in people getting tazered for mouthing off or something similarly unworthy of electrical stimulation?

The Garda Code contains regulations regarding use of Taser and as it is classed as a firearm those regulations will always keep a tight rein on its use.

arybvtcw0eolkf

eroo wrote: »

Tactical Training is being introduced is it not?With the new ranges built it should be easier.

Also,like the ARW puts well trained people back into regular Defence Forces units,I believe the ERU and RSU's will help by putting experienced detectives back into DDU's?

Just a small point.

But the Army Ranger Wing doesn't 'put' anyone back into regular units, personnel are RTU'd for various reason's, but once back in a regular unit are no longer on the strenght of the ARW and so don't operate on ARW SOP's.

eroo

Mairt wrote: »

Just a small point.

But the Army Ranger Wing doesn't 'put' anyone back into regular units, personnel are RTU'd for various reason's, but once back in a regular unit are no longer on the strenght of the ARW and so don't operate on ARW SOP's.

Sorry I should have said that differently.I meant to say ex-ARW who return to their units or other units bring with them a vast amount of skill and knowledge regarding weapons and training.RSU's and ERU could do the same regarding DDU's and other national units?

ojewriej

kowloon wrote: »

Would the lack of risk though (compared to dealing with someone at arms length) result in people getting tazered for mouthing off or something similarly unworthy of electrical stimulation?

It's not that simple really. Tasers have a microchip which records the time and length of use each time it's being deployed. Policeman using it in a way you described would have a lot of explaining to do.
This also reminds me a point about tasers being made on the radio - i'ts a bit silly saying that tasers will be used to torture people etc - you could use your thumb to do it, you don't need a taser. It's people who hurt people, weapons are just tools.

Re foreign lad in Canada: he was actually polish, and he wasn't an illegal immigrant, he just came to the country and there was some problem with a visa. They couldn't communicate with him due to the language barer, he got agitated, they called the mounties and i ended how it ended. He got zapped way to many times and his heart couldn't take it anymore.

It's an example of the abuse of power, nothing else, but it's being used as a proof that tasers are dangerous. Like karlito said, ASP can be as deadly when used incorrectly.

the locust

Do you think ASP's or Tasers are more dangerous to the recipriant?

I would say ASPs because you've a likely chance of breaking bone...

kowloon

When will the regular Gardai actually start carrying Tazers anyway?
I think the time has come when every guard should have one on their belt.

the locust

They will be getting OC Spray as an interim measure, probably won't get taser for uniform members

kowloon

That's a shame given the deterent qualities of a tazer. Spray just doesn't cut it with the scum.

Eru

the locust wrote: »

They will be getting OC Spray as an interim measure, probably won't get taser for uniform members

Have you heard something? last I heard the big man was against it

the locust

i agree i would much rather have a taser than spray. Noel Conroy was quote to have said about the spray - over my dead body will they have pepper spray...

Murphy has made no comment yet, no one knows how he feels about it. But i read in the Indo a month back that Garda management had approved it after the Inspectorate released a report. I dunno. Sgt in Charge of training is crying out for spray as the ASPs are effective but dangerous they need a go between.

As far as i am aware ERU are trained in OC spray from large cannister and pepper rounds that can be deployed from shotgun for barricade incidents (as a result of Abbeylara) they have less lethal teams which can move in, and more recently then and more popular - the Taser, the RSU are supposed to be getting trained in these as well.

FGR

In my opinion the Taser is a highly efficient and capable alternative to CS Spray. That said however I can't imagine the latter seeing the light of day in this country nevermind the former..

I sometimes wonder whether Ireland will be the last country in the world to have a Police force incapable of allowing uniformed officers have the proper capacity to protect the public of which he/she serves; not to mind his/herself?

utick

interesting poll from http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlkfeyojsn/


More than half of gardaí polled about arming the force said uniformed officers should carry guns, it was revealed today.

The online survey by Garda Review magazine found 53% of respondents believed the time had come to issue firearms to rank and file.

Some 159 members who completed the survey were asked: “Do you now believe that all uniformed gardai on duty should routinely be armed?”

Half of respondents were attached to regular units of the force, with 63% of these in favour of being issued with guns.

Of the 47% that voted against more guns, many expressed a desire for more – and more visible – armed response units, according to Garda Review.

It said little emphasis could be placed on the response from other units because of the small sample size.

The results showed a majority of detectives who responded were against the idea but most student gardai were in favour.

The official magazine of the Garda Representative Association claimed the results signalled a cultural shift inside the force.

In an article on the findings, the magazine said the poll results were at odds with a common perception that uniformed gardai don’t want to carry guns.

The survey was carried out over the Garda Review website on a strictly one member/one vote basis, the magazine said.

Podge2k7

id carry a firearm but i would only use if im in danger

Eru

utick wrote: »

interesting poll from http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlkfeyojsn/


More than half of gardaí polled about arming the force said uniformed officers should carry guns, it was revealed today.

The online survey by Garda Review magazine found 53% of respondents believed the time had come to issue firearms to rank and file.

Some 159 members who completed the survey were asked: “Do you now believe that all uniformed gardai on duty should routinely be armed?”

Half of respondents were attached to regular units of the force, with 63% of these in favour of being issued with guns.

Of the 47% that voted against more guns, many expressed a desire for more – and more visible – armed response units, according to Garda Review.

It said little emphasis could be placed on the response from other units because of the small sample size.

The results showed a majority of detectives who responded were against the idea but most student gardai were in favour.

The official magazine of the Garda Representative Association claimed the results signalled a cultural shift inside the force.

In an article on the findings, the magazine said the poll results were at odds with a common perception that uniformed gardai don’t want to carry guns.

The survey was carried out over the Garda Review website on a strictly one member/one vote basis, the magazine said.

Beaten too the punch in posting this. :P

Was reading the article today, wont have a chance to scan the full thing sorry but what was really interesting was that a lot of people were in favour of arming but not immediate as they felt radio, cars and other areas were more of a priority. The 53% were for arming now. Others also said we needed more armed backup and spray, etc for ourselves.

Also, the number mentioned above is the number of people questioned in person, the number that completed the online survey was a lot higher.

Geri Boyle

They're talking about this issue on Matt Cooper -Today FM at the moment

msg11

Fire arms are bad, doesn't matter who has them. It's a touchy subject, but as a member of the public, this is who I and alot of other people see it.

But I am not in the force so I have no real idea of how bad the situation is just from reading the papers but they always over emphasise how bad a situation is.

Also firearms are around centrys what's changed that we suddley need too arm the force? There nothing new like !! Tazzers & CS all the way.

TheNog

msg11 wrote: »

Fire arms are bad, doesn't matter who has them. It's a touchy subject, but as a member of the public, this is who I and alot of other people see it.

Firearms are treated with great respect and even fear from what I have seen inside the force. This is probably why until now there was a total rejection of the potential use of firearms by uniformed members.

msg11 wrote: »

But I am not in the force so I have no real idea of how bad the situation is just from reading the papers but they always over emphasise how bad a situation is.

Some situations can get very bad even though at first arrival can seem trivial or just not very dangerous. They can escalate very quickly and all we can do stand back, watch and wait for back up which can be up to 20 minutes away. In these situations we are powerless and this is not lost on those who are fighting.

msg11 wrote: »

Also firearms are around centrys what's changed that we suddley need too arm the force? There nothing new like !! Tazzers & CS all the way.

Increased use of firearms and the shooting of unarmed member Garda Sherlock in Dublin. Although this shooting was unusual it can be easily predicted they will increase.

I agree with you on Tazer and CS. I dont think the time has come for full arming. At least not just yet. Having said that this needs to be constantly reviewed so we are not calling for weapons after a Garda has been shot dead.

msg11

The nog, As I understand your personal protection must come first, but your human at the end of the day, follow your natural instinct and get the hell away from the trouble, if it becomes more than your head.

I think this is why the garda are as good as they are, they use as much reason and they do force.

Just full on arming is a bit over the top! CS, tazzers and rubber bullets, are as much force as shooting someone, without the high risk of death.

Then again, any scumbag who points guns at people deserve to be shot, dunno I just can't put my finger on it. Something would not feel right, maybe just seen some people with guns??

dredre

as a non member...

if you look back at all the gardai who gave their life in the line of duty, you will find many of them were armed (certainly in the last few decades). while you can argue that this is partly explained by armed members facing higher risk situations, it makes it clear that the issue is bigger than simply the question of carrying a firearm or not.

improved access to armed back up which is visible would seem to be the way forward for many situations - coupled with better training in firearms and use of non-lethal weapons by the force as a whole.

however, if the percentages in the recent survey are borne out accross the force as a whole, we should listen to what we are being told.

ojewriej

I think Paul Williams made a good point about this survey: A lot of members surveyed were probationers or students, and since a lot of them are younger and less experienced there would be much more gung ho, and know a lot less about the realities of the job.

Eru

ojewriej wrote: »

I think Paul Williams made a good point about this survey: A lot of members surveyed were probationers or students, and since a lot of them are younger and less experienced there would be much more gung ho, and know a lot less about the realities of the job.

thats not entirely true. only seven students were questioned as they cannot access the online questionaire and by the same token, the biggest percentage of no votes came from detectives that are already armed which too me just about says it all about ddu and their attitude to uniform members.

back to students, lets remember that the student of today is the uniform beat man of tomorrow so their voice needs too be heard.

dredre wrote: »

as a non member...

if you look back at all the gardai who gave their life in the line of duty, you will find many of them were armed (certainly in the last few decades).

Actually its the complete opposite. McCabe was armed but the vast majority were unarmed when shot dead including a student, off duty garda, off duty sergeant, a probationer that was shot in the back as he ran away from his armed apponent and also a sergeant that was shot in the head while he lay on the ground already wounded from the first shot and begging for his life.

the second two cases i mention are important as the outcome could and probable would have been different had they been armed themselves

tintin

msg11 wrote: »

The nog, As I understand your personal protection must come first, but your human at the end of the day, follow your natural instinct and get the hell away from the trouble, if it becomes more than your head.

Unfortunately as any guard can tell you, trouble often seeks you out, not the other way around. And if guards didn't constantly step up and put themselves at risk to deal with "trouble", then who exactly would deal with the criminals, be they coked up, carrying knives, just pure bad, etc. etc.?? nurses? teachers maybe? Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

FGR

/grits teeth.

Some things really, truly sicken me about the role we're meant to play and the role we're -made- play.