Gun Crime Ireland

djtechnics1210

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0321/limerick.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0320/rathfarnham.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0313/tallaght.html

Another Week gone by and another three murders in Ireland.

Not a week has gone by since the start of this year without some firearms incident happening in some part of the country whether it be a shooting, robbery, tiger kidnapping etc etc and its a miracle that no one has been killed in these incidents

There has been 9 gangland murders this year (thats an average of 3 a month)

The government has stated that they are making more resources available to tackle gang and gun crime........ but are they really????

ERU and RSU aswell as a whole other load of National Units are carrying out armed patrols and surveillance all over the country to tackle gang and gun crime....... but the incidents keep happening, the criminals aren't afraid of being caught

Has gun crime gotten out of control in Ireland and is their any way of tackling it at this stage, are AGS now fighting a losing battle???????

POGAN

Yes you are correct show at the shooting in limerick the day after wen unarmed gardai were protecting the scence there was unrest,they called in RSU and extra regular, kids about 12 to 17 had no repected at all.... We need to police alot harder than laws in this country

Trojan911

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

Has gun crime gotten out of control in Ireland and is their any way of tackling it at this stage, are AGS now fighting a losing battle???????

Conviction rates since 2003 suggest the AGS have been fighting a losing battle for a while with gun crime.

So yes, I would say with confidence, gun crime is well out of control in this country and appears to have been for a while.

New laws, more money for upping & training the ERU & RSU's, more update technology, more protection for everyday members.

Unfortunatley, we live in Ireland where the present pathetic Government is more interested in cut backs.

eroo

Saturation policing such as that in Limerick in 2003 should be implemented in every known 'troublespot', not just one's that make the headlines regurarly. Would call for a lot of resources, but should be done. Also, there should be a Garda heli permanently based at Shannon Airport/Sarsfield Barracks.

eroo

POGAN wrote: »

Yes you are correct show at the shooting in limerick the day after wen unarmed gardai were protecting the scence there was unrest,they called in RSU and extra regular, kids about 12 to 17 had no repected at all.... We need to police alot harder than laws in this country

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0318/6news_av.html?2509699,null,230
RSU breaking up said group of kids, note pepper spray/mace in the Garda's hand.

Manic Moran

New laws, more money for upping & training the ERU & RSU's, more update technology, more protection for everyday members.

So what do you have in mind?

I'm not sure what new laws will do, I'm fairly sure there are already laws against the unauthorised importing of firearms, unlicensed ownership of firearms, and of using firearms against people outside of certain very unique circumstances.

I guess some Kevlar wouldn't go amiss, but that only helps the people wearing them, not the public at large. Some US cities have placed 'shot detectors' out and about, they triangulate the noise when a firearm is discharged, but their cost is probably half of the Irish defence budget. (OK, looking it up, seems to be about $350,000 per system, each of which will cover four square miles). And, of course, it's only of use after the shooting.

NTM

Trojan911

Manic Moran wrote: »

So what do you have in mind?

A new Government...

Zambia

I cant think of one Irish Political party who would fork out any amount of cash to Equip the gardai with anything more than fancy new Jackets with tear resistant elbow patches.

It will take a few of you guys getting shot. Sad but true.

Trojan911

Zambia232 wrote: »

It will take a few of you guys getting shot. Sad but true.

You are spot on..... As with everything, it boils down to money. Life is so cheap these days.

A dead Garda is just another statistic on a Government chart.

Governmental crocodile tears will be shed, the GRA will jump up & down, Joe Duffy & the Tabs will get their slots and then it'll all be forgotten by the general public.... and the Government.....

One could argue that this is the job they signed up to, knowing the risks. It could also be argued that they should be able to go about their jobs, knowing the risks, but getting full backing by the Government, by being better equipped to deal with their jobs. Money should not be an object but also not an endless bucket.

I would argue the latter...

Manic Moran

Cops have been shot around here for as long as I can remember. Doesn't seem to make a whit of difference.

We had four members of Oakland PD shot and killed yesterday. The offender was a parolee from imprisonment for Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Armed Robbery. He had a warrant outstanding for parole violation when two motorcycle cops pulled him over for some minor traffic infringement. He shot both of them and bolted. He holed up in an apartment, the police got a tip and SWAT went in. He killed two more before being shot. (According to his sister in today's paper, he's not a monster)

Of course, there is now the big media circus with all the politicians jumping up and down making pronouncements as to how they must 'do something.' Top of the list, new firearms legislation.

So let's see here. We have someone who shouldn't have been on the streets to begin with. He was someone legally prohibited from owning a firearm. If the media is to be believed, it was a firearm which is illegal for anyone to own in California in the first place. Instead of wondering why he was on the streets, why he was able to illegally get a gun, or why he was able to get an illegal gun, they want to go and attack something which isn't the problem, because it's a hell of a lot easier just to issue new legislation that looks good.

A little over a year ago, SFPD had an officer killed by a fleeing felon out on repeated bail in a vehicle collision. Look for the youtube of the head of the SF police officer's association giving the legal system both barrels: The police are doing what they need to do, but are being let down by a legal system which just turns right around and release the criminals.

There's a 'we can do whatever we want' attitude amongst the less law-abiding types over on this side of the water, I just hope you can get yourselves sorted out before you follow us.

NTM

djtechnics1210

I think Ireland isn't far away from reaching that point, i hope i'll be proved wrong though.

Zambia

Just looked that up Manic, shocking never heard of two SWAT officers being taken out.

FAI
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090322/ap_on_re_us/police_shot_ca

The one saving grace for Irish serving members is the wide spread belief that if you did shot a cop. You know every Cop in Ireland would be after you like a dog out of the traps, you would be be caught and you would never be released.

I have another piont but I want to search to see if its been asked before.

Manic Moran

The one saving grace for Irish serving members is the wide spread belief that if you did shot a cop. You know every Cop in Ireland would be after you like a dog out of the traps, you would be be caught and you would never be released.

In fairness, we have that here too. Oakland PD is 550 men strong, and of course, not all will be on duty at once. They had 200 officers in that manhunt in a four block area. And if you do get caught, you're liable to end up on death row, not just locked away for life. Taken to extremes, you have that incident in 2006 in Florida where a guy shot (executed) a cop, and when he was found, the police shot him 68 times. (And mised him 42 times, gives you an idea on how close they were.) Concerned over 'excessive use of force', a journalist asked the Sheriff why they shot him 68 times. His response was "That's all the bullets we had, or else we would have shot him more"
Florida Civil Rights Association made a compaint about the excessive force, launching an FBI investigation. Last summer DOJ said "They did nothing wrong"
http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

Oakland SWAT is supposedly one of the better groups out there. Still, anyone can just be plain unlucky, no matter how good you are.

NTM

LostinBlanch

Zambia232 wrote: »

Just looked that up Manic, shocking never heard of two SWAT officers being taken out.

FAI
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090322/ap_on_re_us/police_shot_ca

The one saving grace for Irish serving members is the wide spread belief that if you did shot a cop. You know every Cop in Ireland would be after you like a dog out of the traps, you would be be caught and you would never be released.

I have another piont but I want to search to see if its been asked before.

Well is that actually true? I mean have the cops ever got the person who shot the motorcycle cop in Ossory Rd a couple of years ago?

They may have been doing a lot that we didn't see in the papers etc, but are the killers still free?

Whitewater-AGS

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well is that actually true? I mean have the cops ever got the person who shot the motorcycle cop in Ossory Rd a couple of years ago?

They may have been doing a lot that we didn't see in the papers etc, but are the killers still free?

Arrests where made but knowing who done it and proving it are two different things.

Zambia

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well is that actually true? I mean have the cops ever got the person who shot the motorcycle cop in Ossory Rd a couple of years ago?

They may have been doing a lot that we didn't see in the papers etc, but are the killers still free?

Huge difference between being shot and being killed, but I also never said that it was a 100% assumption. So you may get away with it but your criminal career is over your on the run. I have another question but I decided it would be another topic.

AlekSmart

There's a 'we can do whatever we want' attitude amongst the less law-abiding types over on this side of the water, I just hope you can get yourselves sorted out before you follow us.

Sadly Manic,I fear we are very close behind you.

So let's see here. We have someone who shouldn't have been on the streets to begin with.

The sad case of Manuela Riedo,the 17 year old Swiss visitor murdered by what can only be described as a human deviant should serve to underline just how lax the Irish State is when presented with the choice of taking a well documented threat out of circulation or of waiting for an innocent such as Ms Riedo to come along and be fodder for some slavering animal.

It is clear that local Gardai were only too familiar with this Gerald Barry character,a familiarity going back at least 13 years and which left them in little doubt that this geezer possessed all of the attributes required to perpetrate violence of this nature.

All of this considerable track record,including unusually enough some actual custodial bouts,should have served to allow the State incarcerate this clown long enough for old age or dementia to take the edge off his murderous desires.

No,it seems the Irish State and it`s considerable legal weight is designed to preserve the "Rights" of such malevolent creatures to roam free and inflict as much destruction and pain as they can get away with.

I personally could not give a toss that at several junctures in this creatures criminal career various legal representatives attempted to impress on Judges that the poor fellow came from a "dysfunctional background".

I am far more impressed and moved by the Victim Impact Statement of Manuela Riedo`s parents in that grim Central Criminal Courtroom.

I would recommend repeated reading of Herr Riedo`s short but elequent address which,if the Irish State had any REAL concern about it`s own standing,it would record and playback to Mr Barry in his cell every morning and night for the duration of his incarceration.

Manic,you are quite correct,the "We can do whatever we want" attitude is indeed now well established and encouraged at all levels in Irish society with few in Public Life having the courage to speak out against it for fear of being labeled reactionary.

Dublinstiofán

Your wasting your breadth theres no point even talking about it.

This is Ireland. In Ireland issues are swept under the carpet until some defining event occurs forcing the government into action. Nothing will happen to tackle the fight against gangland killings or guncrime until a few innocent bystanders are killed in the process of one of these hits.

Veronica Guieran springs to mind. Nothing happened until she was murdered. Then within a couple of months we got the proceeds of crime act and the CAB.

Manic Moran

As details come out, the Oakland thing looks worse. Seems that the two motorcycle cops were wounded in the initial exchange of fire, and when on the ground were finished off by close range shots to the head.

DNA from the body of the culprit matches a sample taken from a rape victim in June last year. Apparently California does not have a mandatory DNA-sampling law for prisoners. Something to do with a supposed violating civil rights of privacy.

NTM

donvito99

Manic Moran wrote: »

Apparently California does not have a mandatory DNA-sampling law for prisoners. Something to do with a supposed violating civil rights of privacy.

Could someone clarify but I dont think some prisoners are even photographed before they go to prison here due to overcrowding.

And the Gardai dont have a dna database.

djtechnics1210

Another gun murder to add to the statistics

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0330/coolock.html

utick

tbh i find stories like this http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/eyaueyqlmhcw/ where a guy with 31 convictions can randomly slash 4 peoples faces and only get 3.5 yrs much more disturbing than the gun crime problem.




''A 20-year-old who slashed the faces of four people in separate unprovoked attacks within a 15-minute period has been sentenced to five years at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

Glen Hogan left all his victims with permanent and disfiguring facial scars after drinking 16 bottles of cider and a large quantity of vodka. Three of his victims were foreign nationals but the court heard this was not a motivating factor.

Hogan, of Thomond Road, Ballyfermot pleaded guilty to four counts of assault causing harm on April 19, 2008 in Dublin city centre.

Garda Jonathon Petrie told prosecuting counsel, Mr Paul Carroll BL, that Hogan was at a birthday party in a GAA club and afterwards went to the Q Bar on Burgh Quay. He was searched in the club by a bouncer and a six-inch hunting knife was taken from him.

After repeated pleas he was given his knife back before been thrown out of the club. When he and a friend went out on the street he "squared up" to Mr Bashir Guirina, an 19-year-old Algerian national.

He cut Mr Guirina's face before fleeing with his friend. The victim described been suddenly cut with a blade "for no reason at all," He was taken to hospital with a 5cm-deep wound and was given 12 stitches.

Minutes later Hogan was on Fleet Street in Temple Bar. Mr Sebastian Treche, a French national, was there with his girlfriend and saw him harassing another group of people.

Hogan then came towards Mr Treche and cut his face. They exchanged words before the victim fled with his girlfriend. He was treated for a cut to his chin requiring eight stitches.

Hogan then approached Mr Keith Mason, a 30-year-old Irishman, who was on the way home from a friend's birthday party. He cursed and shouted at Mr Mason before slicing his face. He fled leaving the victim holding his face and bleeding heavily.

Mr Mason received 11 stitches and is left with a permanent two-inch scar. He also described how his confidence was ruined by the attack and he has trouble finding work because of his scar.

Hogan went 50m up the road to East Essex Street where he encountered Mr Enriqe Tascon, a 27-year-old French national.

Hogan pushed into a friend of the victim before approaching him and slashing his face without saying anything. He then walked away. Mr Tascon also required 11 stitches and said he suffered nightmares following the attack.

Gardai identified Hogan, who has 31 previous convictions, by viewing CCTV footage from the area. He was arrested five days later and admitted to gardaí he "cut up and sliced a few people".

He said he was drunk and thought someone may have spiked his drink. He claimed he had the knife because he was "fighting a lot of people" and had heard one of them was in the city centre.

When he was shown the CCTV footage of the attacks he said he felt "bad" and was going to get help to stop drinking alcohol.

Defence counsel, Mr Michael Bowman BL, said Hogan had suffered with psychiatric issues from a young age and had been sporadically employed since leaving school early. He said his mother suffered from multiple sclerosis and his father was unemployed.

Judge Martin Nolan described the assaults as "horrendous" and said it was lucky the victims did not have more serious long-term injuries.

He imposed sentences of three and two years to run consecutively with the other charges taken into account. He noted Hogan's early guilty plea and young age and suspended the final 18 months on strict conditions''

Manic Moran

Huge difference between being shot and being killed

You know, I've always had issue with that sort of thought process. You'll get one sentence for attempted murder, and another sentence entirely for murder.

Why?

The only difference between the two was that the victim got lucky in one case. No difference in intent, will, or the likelihood of trying it again should the person not be in prison.

NTM

TheNog

utick wrote: »

the Q Bar on Burgh Quay. He was searched in the club by a bouncer and a six-inch hunting knife was taken from him.

After repeated pleas he was given his knife back before been thrown out of the club.

I would presume this would leave the Q bar open to civil action from the Injured Parties??

Relevant

Manic Moran wrote: »

You know, I've always had issue with that sort of thought process. You'll get one sentence for attempted murder, and another sentence entirely for murder.

Why?

The only difference between the two was that the victim got lucky in one case. No difference in intent, will, or the likelihood of trying it again should the person not be in prison.

NTM

Well if you take the most recent cases, the guy at the weekend was shot in the leg whereas the guy yesterday was shot 3 times ni the head so intent was different.

Although if the intention is murder the sentence should be the same.

And as for that scrote who slashed peoples faces, he is clearly a very dangerous person. He had his last 18 months suspended because of his guilty plea. That doesn't show remorse that just shows that he doesn't give a ****e if he goes to prison. He was caught on cctv so he knew he'd be done for it. He had 2 choices, plead not guilty and get sentenced or plead guilty and get 18 months off his sentence.

TheNog

Relevant wrote: »

They should slash his face and leave him scarred for good measure

I can understand your frustration but please refrain from posting or suggesting anything illegal on this forum

Thanks

Relevant

TheNog wrote: »

I can understand your frustration but please refrain from posting or suggesting anything illegal on this forum

Thanks

Edited

djtechnics1210

That sentence should be appealed by D.P.P, its an absolute joke that he got such a small sentence for 3 horrific crimes.
Not a bit of compensation paid either to the ip's.... this should have added extra time to sentence i think

TomRooney

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0321/limerick.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0320/rathfarnham.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0313/tallaght.html

Another Week gone by and another three murders in Ireland.

Not a week has gone by since the start of this year without some firearms incident happening in some part of the country whether it be a shooting, robbery, tiger kidnapping etc etc and its a miracle that no one has been killed in these incidents

There has been 9 gangland murders this year (thats an average of 3 a month)

The government has stated that they are making more resources available to tackle gang and gun crime........ but are they really????

ERU and RSU aswell as a whole other load of National Units are carrying out armed patrols and surveillance all over the country to tackle gang and gun crime....... but the incidents keep happening, the criminals aren't afraid of being caught

Has gun crime gotten out of control in Ireland and is their any way of tackling it at this stage, are AGS now fighting a losing battle???????

organised crime is not a new phenomenon, it has always existed in society in one form or another, it will never ever be totaly eradicated, the best that can be hoped for is for organised crime to be restricted.
the main causes of crime are deprivation, poverty, and lack of education.
unless these issues are tackled the problem will continue to spiral out of control.

there is a reason why it is certain areas around the country that seem to consistantly churn out criminals of all kinds and that is because most of these areas are deprived and ignored by the powers that be who are too concerned about where there next brown envolope is coming from,

most of the people in these areas are under educated due to many personal problems and such, and as a result have little possibility of making anything of there lives, there is little hope for them in securing a glittering career most of which dont have the basic family support which is needed to excell in the world.

there is also i big level of mistrust between the gardai and the youth in these areas partly because of the attitude of some gardai who have a rather judgemental attitude towards the youth rather than an understanding of the circumstances these people grew up in.

policing is not an easy job and it is not meant to be, but i believe here in Ireland policing is different than anywhere else in europe, this country by its nature is very politicised in all aspects of society including the gardai, and this should never be the case,

the gardai are supposed to be impartial but in Ireland this seems to be a hard thing to achieve, i grew up in a working class estate on the northside of Dublin, i was a quiet disciplined child, my father was in the army and ensured me and my siblings never ventured far from the garden so we would never get into trouble,

i remeber as a child the few times i did venture to the shops with other kids or just on to another road, i remeber often being stopped by the gardai for no apparent reason and been called a little dublin scumbag for no reason, this was common place and served no purpose other than to alienate the gardai from the youth in the area who seen them as bullys, i dont know if this type of thing still goes on as my days of hanging around the streets are well gone, but it is instances like this that fuel criminality from small seeds grow trees as they say and it has never been more evident than in Ireland.

unless we target the real issues of deprivation, poverty, and education, crime will inevitibly get worse in Ireland.

TomRooney

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

That sentence should be appealed by D.P.P, its an absolute joke that he got such a small sentence for 3 horrific crimes.
Not a bit of compensation paid either to the ip's.... this should have added extra time to sentence i think

the majority of irish judges are out of touch with reality, they would sooner lock up a loan defaulter or someone driving without tax, than sentance a joyrider or drug dealer to any time in prison.

TomRooney

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

Another gun murder to add to the statistics

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0330/coolock.html

drugs are the scourge of this nation and in my view it is drugs gangs that pose the biggest over all threat to the state.

im sure this fella wont be missed.

Sparks

TheNog wrote: »

I would presume this would leave the Q bar open to civil action from the Injured Parties??

They handed him back a 6-inch hunting knife? Had they never heard of the 1990 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act? Or even common sense?

TomRooney

Sparks wrote: »

They handed him back a 6-inch hunting knife? Had they never heard of the 1990 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act? Or even common sense?

well doormen are not gardai they dont realy have the legal right to hold onto someones property whatever it may be, but they should have at least rang the gardai.

Whitewater-AGS

TomRooney wrote: »

well doormen are not gardai they dont realy have the legal right to hold onto someones property whatever it may be, but they should have at least rang the gardai.

I think you'd find that although they have no power to hold onto a knife no judge in the land would entertain a case against them for doing so as they where keeping it in the interest of public safety and the protection of life.

TomRooney

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

I think you'd find that although they have no power to hold onto a knife no judge in the land would entertain a case against them for doing so as they where keeping it in the interest of public safety and the protection of life.

well possibly but with the judges around these days who knows what they would do.

Trojan911

TomRooney wrote: »

well possibly but with the judges around these days who knows what they would do.

A quick call to the locals stating a 6in knife has been confiscated from X, could gardai please call to collect it.

That would be suffice. The gardai would give direction as what to do, or they may advise it's destruction by the club.

Gardai collecting it & reviewing the CCTV for ID on the perp would be the correct course of action.

ART6

It's something I posted once before on Boards although I can't remember where -- not on ES I'm sure. Anyway, the story. Many years ago in the late 1950s I was serving an engineering apprenticeship in the Glasgow shipyards, at a time when crime was rampant and the razor gangs were about. Then a new police chief was appointed to sort it. He recruited a lot of new cops, many of whom I believe were ex army etc, and all were big, big guys with short tempers. They took on the gangs and wiped the floor with them, and slammed them into the Barlinnie prison that made the later Guantanamo look like a holiday camp. No-one who ever went to Barlinnie wanted to go there again. When we young lads went out for a night in town, if there were more than three of us, we could be sure a big cop would want to know where we were going and why. When the bars closed a big paddy wagon was backed up to the door and a giant of a man would invite us politely to leave. Hesitation was not a good strategy. By the time I finished my time and moved on, you could go anywhere in Glasgow in safety -- even in the dreaded Gorbals. No gangs any more. Zero tolerance before anyone else though of it, but it worked. A few years later I sailed at sea with a guy who had been in a razor gang, and he told me how the cops had literally taken them apart. He had learned from that and had become a useful citizen, because he had been persuaded of the error of his ways by the police and the courts, and he didn't want to go there again.

OK. Draconian. Police harassment rears its ugly head. But I am an ordinary citizen even if an old one. I am not permitted to defend my family, so I want a bit more zero tolerance please.

meathstevie

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

I think you'd find that although they have no power to hold onto a knife no judge in the land would entertain a case against them for doing so as they where keeping it in the interest of public safety and the protection of life.

I'd say you're spot on the money there. Any judge who has a problem with a civilian taking proportionate action to potentially preserve life and prevent injury should not even be considered worthy of his position.

meathstevie

Relevant wrote: »

Well if you take the most recent cases, the guy at the weekend was shot in the leg whereas the guy yesterday was shot 3 times ni the head so intent was different.

Although if the intention is murder the sentence should be the same.

And as for that scrote who slashed peoples faces, he is clearly a very dangerous person. He had his last 18 months suspended because of his guilty plea. That doesn't show remorse that just shows that he doesn't give a ****e if he goes to prison. He was caught on cctv so he knew he'd be done for it. He had 2 choices, plead not guilty and get sentenced or plead guilty and get 18 months off his sentence.

I'm not too sure whether I agree with the point made about shooting someone in the leg...It can be just as lethal as a shot in the head if the shot placement is wrong or right depending on your point of view. As far as I'm concerned shooting someone unlawfully has only one intent : to kill. It is nearly impossible to shoot at any part of the human body with any certainty it's not going to result in death.

TomRooney

meathstevie wrote: »

I'm not too sure whether I agree with the point made about shooting someone in the leg...It can be just as lethal as a shot in the head if the shot placement is wrong or right depending on your point of view. As far as I'm concerned shooting someone unlawfully has only one intent : to kill. It is nearly impossible to shoot at any part of the human body with any certainty it's not going to result in death.

there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to maim.
as in the amry one is trained to shoot to maim rather than kill for certain situations, to maim would be shooting extremitys arms legs, any shots to the torso or head should be considered as attempted murder in my view, unless its in a legal self defence situation.

eroo

TomRooney wrote: »

as in the amry one is trained to shoot to maim rather than kill for certain situations, to maim would be shooting extremitys arms legs, any shots to the torso or head should be considered as attempted murder in my view, unless its in a legal self defence situation.

In the Army, your trained to shot, simple as. The ammunition is designed to maim. ''All right lads, aim for his ankles'' isn't exactly commonplace.. you just shoot at your target.

Sparks

TomRooney wrote: »

there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to maim.

In intent, perhaps. In effect, no, there really isn't. There are more qualified people in here who can explain the effect of a damaged or severed femoral or brachial artery, but suffice it to say that there is no "safe" place to shoot a person using a firearm.

Perhaps someone more qualified could ant errors, but as I understand it, the decision to fire is only taken where to not fire would lead to the deaths of others; mainly because deciding to shoot someone is in effect highly likely to be the decision that kills them.

Manic Moran

as in the amry one is trained to shoot to maim rather than kill for certain situations

Aim centre mass. End of.

I don't believe there's actually any difference in concept between police marksmanship and military marksmanship, except in the addition of the concept of suppression (Police rarely go up against machineguns, after all). In both cases you shoot until the other guy is out of the fight. Wounded, or dead, either is acceptable as long as they are no longer a threat.

The ammunition is designed to maim.

Technically it's designed with maximum energy transfer in mind. If they just wanted to poke holes in people, the simplest cored rounds will suffice, but they're going for fragmentation in soft tissue, whilst maintaining form through solids like windows and armour. There's the old saw about military calibres getting smaller to cause wounds taking three people out of the fight with one bullet, but really they went smaller simply because soldiers could mathematically hit more people with their basic load by carrying more rounds (smaller bullets) with more accuracy (less recoil)

NTM

TomRooney

eroo wrote: »

In the Army, your trained to shot, simple as. The ammunition is designed to maim. ''All right lads, aim for his ankles'' isn't exactly commonplace.. you just shoot at your target.

you realy dont know what your talking about here mate, in the army you can only shoot follwing certain criteria, in defence of your life, in defence of your comarades life, while protecting your post, or protecting government buildings, or to prevent yourself being forcibly disarmed.

in all cases the firing of ball ammunition must conicide with a threat against life, and then you must give warning shots first, followed by shots to the extremities with intention of maiming only, then as a last resort if the threat is still present you shoot to kill.

Manic Moran

TomRooney wrote: »

you realy dont know what your talking about here mate, in the army you can only shoot follwing certain criteria, in defence of your life, in defence of your comarades life, while protecting your post, or protecting government buildings, or to prevent yourself being forcibly disarmed.

That is an ROE which applies to the peacetime role only. They certainly don't apply in combat, the Army's primary purpose. I can see where you're coming from, but this specification was not made clear earlier.

in all cases the firing of ball ammunition must conicide with a threat against life, and then you must give warning shots first, followed by shots to the extremities with intention of maiming only, then as a last resort if the threat is still present you shoot to kill.

I must say, I don't recall the 'shots to extremities' before, but I guess I could see that in ATCP. It's been a while for me, my memory may be hazy.

Of academic interest, the ROE for the US military in the equivalent role specifically states "Warning shots will not be fired" and "All shots will be centre mass." The two theories being (a) The warning shot needs to land somewere, and it's an old school of firearms safety to never shoot where you cannot see, and (b) If you're pulling the trigger, it's the use of lethal force, so the situation must justify lethal force. As was pointed out, you can never fire rounds without the possibility of killing someone, even if you're aiming at an extremity. And if you're using lethal force, you're using it to quickly stop someone, so you need to aim for the middle for it to have the desired effect.

You do have an apparent contradiction though. Your two paragraphs do not seem to cover authority to fire to prevent yourself from being disarmed through non-lethal means, for example.

to prevent yourself being forcibly disarmed.

in all cases the firing of ball ammunition must conicide with a threat against life

NTM

TomRooney

Manic Moran wrote: »

Aim centre mass. End of.

I don't believe there's actually any difference in concept between police marksmanship and military marksmanship, except in the addition of the concept of suppression (Police rarely go up against machineguns, after all). In both cases you shoot until the other guy is out of the fight. Wounded, or dead, either is acceptable as long as they are no longer a threat.



Technically it's designed with maximum energy transfer in mind. If they just wanted to poke holes in people, the simplest cored rounds will suffice, but they're going for fragmentation in soft tissue, whilst maintaining form through solids like windows and armour. There's the old saw about military calibres getting smaller to cause wounds taking three people out of the fight with one bullet, but really they went smaller simply because soldiers could mathematically hit more people with their basic load by carrying more rounds (smaller bullets) with more accuracy (less recoil)

NTM

there is a major difference between police marksmanship and military marksmanship, police shooting is mainly close quarter, military shooting ranges from 100m to 300m independantly then 600m at section level also there are many different tactical drills involving shooting that military personel are trained in that police forces would never be trained in.

in regards the irish military and there unique role they play as an aid to civil power in this country, there are many legal restraints placed on the military, i wont go into to many specifics, as it may be a breach of confidentiality, but suffice to say a soldier is responsible for every action he is involved in when shooting and he is answerable to civil authoritys in this country in the event he takes a life by shooting, therefore it is imperitive he operates under the proscribed legal legislation and he must be able to account for his actions lest he be charged with murder.


as for the talk of calibre size, the reason it is 5.56 is mainly because it is the standard NATO size of ammo for assault rifles, meaning if the irish where operating along side the french in chad and they got hit up, and say the french soldier was killed and an irish soldier had no ammo left he could simply take the ammo from the french soldier and continue firing.
also 5.56 is designed to maim rather than kill immediatly the reason as ever being tactical if a member of an enemy platoon is shot and injured then the other members of that platoon are going to eventualy make an effort to drag him to safety and when they do they will be shot also and on and on it goes untill there either all shot or they can not operate as a unit due to lack of numbers....and thats the end of todays lesson!:D
from my experiance also the level of discipline differs greatly in regards marksmanship between police forces and military marksmanship.

TomRooney

Sparks wrote: »

In intent, perhaps. In effect, no, there really isn't. There are more qualified people in here who can explain the effect of a damaged or severed femoral or brachial artery, but suffice it to say that there is no "safe" place to shoot a person using a firearm.

Perhaps someone more qualified could ant errors, but as I understand it, the decision to fire is only taken where to not fire would lead to the deaths of others; mainly because deciding to shoot someone is in effect highly likely to be the decision that kills them.

there is a difference, ill explain, if i was to shoot you in with an assault rifle from 200 yards and i was to aim for and hit you in the throat the round would tear your throat asunder then likely snap your spinal column that is a kill shot, but if i was to aim for and shoot you in the arm or lower leg then the chances of your surviving the wound are fairly high, i know there are arteries running through your legs the main one being the left leg, but the chance of actualy hitting this arterie are not as high as the chances of not hitting it. therefore there is a difference in intent and effect.

eroo

TomRooney wrote: »

from my experiance also the level of discipline differs greatly in regards marksmanship between police forces and military marksmanship.

What is your experience, do you mind me asking?

Manic Moran

TomRooney wrote: »

there is a major difference between police marksmanship and military marksmanship, police shooting is mainly close quarter, military shooting ranges from 100m to 300m independantly then 600m

Egads. I'd better tell the Army that all that time I've spent on the reflexive-fire range at 5m or less was useless. (I should add that we've identified a need for individual marksmanship at 600m or more, hence the implementation of the Squad Designated Marksman course). I still maintain that the principles of marksmanship are identical between military and civilians, merely the surrounding environment and applications change. After all, if the Army, being the violent and gun-toting organisation that it is can't shoot people without aiming for the extremities, why should civilians organisations like the police not be held to a similar standard? Are they not supposed to be the experts at low-intensity?

at section level also there are many different tactical drills involving shooting that military personel are trained in that police forces would never be trained in.

Agreed. Though one needs to be careful about confusing tactics and marksmanship. It's akin to the difference between movement and maneuver, in that the one is a mere component of the other.

in regards the irish military and there unique role they play as an aid to civil power in this country, there are many legal restraints placed on the military, i wont go into to many specifics, as it may be a breach of confidentiality, but suffice to say a soldier is responsible for every action he is involved in when shooting and he is answerable to civil authoritys in this country in the event he takes a life by shooting, therefore it is imperitive he operates under the proscribed legal legislation and he must be able to account for his actions lest he be charged with murder.

Is your implication here that if an armed Garda shoots someone, he is not responsible and he need not account for his actions? You are not making a good argument for a peacetime difference in standards here.

Additionally, as a personal opinion, I think the suggestion of aiming for an extremity is ridiculous. There are very few situations I can think of which would pose a threat of such a nature which would allow for the use of ball ammo but would still allow sufficient time for the entire escalation process. In reality, you'll be lucky to get to "Shout Show Shoot." If you're really ballsy, you can go with "Shout Show Shove Shoot".

as for the talk of calibre size, the reason it is 5.56 is mainly because it is the standard NATO size of ammo for assault rifles

I went back a bit further, as to the choice of 5.56mm as the NATO size, not why the Irish picked it.

also 5.56 is designed to maim rather than kill immediatly the reason as ever being tactical if a member of an enemy platoon is shot and injured then the other members of that platoon are going to eventualy make an effort to drag him to safety and when they do they will be shot also and on and on it goes untill there either all shot or they can not operate as a unit due to lack of numbers....and thats the end of todays lesson!:D

I have addressed this misconception earlier. It's a great story, and may even have that effect against some forces (i.e. those that actually care a lot about their troops, which didn't necessarily include those armies that the US was worried about when choosing the calibre), but ultimately it was not the reason that the calibre was chosen. It was quite simply a numbers game. "How many people can a soldier hit with his basic load?"

NTM

Manic Moran

TomRooney wrote: »

there is a difference, ill explain, if i was to shoot you in with an assault rifle from 200 yards and i was to aim for and hit you in the throat the round would tear your throat asunder then likely snap your spinal column that is a kill shot, but if i was to aim for and shoot you in the arm or lower leg then the chances of your surviving the wound are fairly high, i know there are arteries running through your legs the main one being the left leg, but the chance of actualy hitting this arterie are not as high as the chances of not hitting it. therefore there is a difference in intent and effect.

This sounds like an excellent prospect for the application of the Egg-Shell-Skull theory of law, in which the actor must take the victim 'as he comes.' Even if he had no intent to damage the victim, he's still liable for the effects.

Other things can go wrong as well. The target may, for example, stumble at the wrong time. The shooter may miss and hit a vital organ. The shooter may miss, ricochet off the ground, and hit someone else entirely.

I wonder if this theoretical concept has ever actually survived a practical application? In real terms, when was the last time anyone in the Irish Army deliberately shot someone with the intention to wound that person in the ATCP role?

NTM

TomRooney

Manic Moran wrote: »

Egads.

I'd better tell the Army that all that time I've spent on the reflexive-fire range at 5m or less was useless. (I should add that we've identified a need for individual marksmanship at 600m or more, hence the implementation of the Squad Designated Marksman course)

.

look man, im not gonna get into a debate with you about it, of course there is a need for individual marksmanship at 600m meteres but it aint realy that effective with a standard infantry rifle unless you have scopes or a higher calibre your not gonna hit much at 600m, whereas a section of men firing at the same target at 600m has a much higher level of accuracy, as for 5m ranges yeah thats great i never said it was useles, just that it would be more specific to police forces than military, i have fired from 5m to 25m myself and i like it, but other than in a FIBUA role it isnt much use.

I still maintain that the principles of marksmanship are identical between military and civilians, merely the surrounding environment and applications change. After all, if the Army, being the violent and gun-toting organisation that it is can't shoot people without aiming for the extremities, why should civilians organisations like the police not be held to a similar standard? Are they not supposed to be the experts at low-intensity?

we can agree to disagree on the difference between police and military marksmanship i believe there completly different in both situation and training. in regards the shooting of extremities i presumed it would be obvious i was referring to the ATCP role undertaken by the irish army in Ireland, obviously if they where in chad or kosovo and they got hit up there not going to aim for arms and legs. the irish army are fairly unique in regards the role they play in aid to civil power on a regular basis.

Agreed. Though one needs to be careful about confusing tactics and marksmanship. It's akin to the difference between movement and maneuver, in that the one is a mere component of the other.

i see them more as a gelling together to creat the optimum effect.

Is your implication here that if an armed Garda shoots someone, he is not responsible and he need not account for his actions? You are not making a good argument for a peacetime difference in standards here.

Additionally, as a personal opinion, I think the suggestion of aiming for an extremity is ridiculous. There are very few situations I can think of which would pose a threat of such a nature which would allow for the use of ball ammo but would still allow sufficient time for the entire escalation process. In reality, you'll be lucky to get to "Shout Show Shoot." If you're really ballsy, you can go with "Shout Show Shove Shoot".

i am not a member of the gardai so cant be too specific on the operational document they operate under, also i am not trying to make any argument for anything, i am just explaining the way things are in the irish military, which is a far stride away from the US military in many ways. as for shooting extremities i will give you a simple example, if say a prisoner was attempting to escape from a high security prison and you seen him about to scale a wall you could prevent him from climbing by shooting above his head, if that didnt stop him you could shoot him in the legs, and if that still didnt stop him you could shoot him in the arm and so on, as i said the Irish Army are fairly unique in the role they play in aid to civil power capacity.

I went back a bit further, as to the choice of 5.56mm as the NATO size, not why the Irish picked it.

i dont get your point here...?

I have addressed this misconception earlier. It's a great story, and may even have that effect against some forces (i.e. those that actually care a lot about their troops, which didn't necessarily include those armies that the US was worried about when choosing the calibre), but ultimately it was not the reason that the calibre was chosen. It was quite simply a numbers game. "How many people can a soldier hit with his basic load?"

NTM

this explanation by you does not make sense, the rifle the irish army used before there current one was a 7.62 FN, it would blow you apart at 300m easily, it had a high rate of fire eqaul if not hire to that of the current rifle of the irish army.
the MAIN reason the 5.56mm round was adopted by almost all countrys in the UN is simply down to operational effectivness, such as the interchangability between all weapons from all countrys.