Garda Shooting in Cork

sdanseo

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0521/cork.html

Just throwing it up here if its of interest to people. Don't nessecarily need speculation or a massive debate as obviouslyh there'll be an ongoing investigation - but it's news.

ANXIOUS

sdonn wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0521/cork.html

Just throwing it up here if its of interest to people. Don't nessecarily need speculation or a massive debate as obviouslyh there'll be an ongoing investigation - but it's news.

Obviously I don't know the in's and outs of this story. But I would've thought this would've been a perfect case for gardai to deploy non lethal weapons. I'm sure this will be one angle the gardai ombudsman will look at. Well done to the gardai for ensuring no innocent people were hurt.

SugarHigh

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Obviously I don't know the in's and outs of this story. But I would've thought this would've been a perfect case for gardai to deploy non lethal weapons. I'm sure this will be one angle the gardai ombudsman will look at. Well done to the gardai for ensuring no innocent people were hurt.

The guy had a loaded shotgun.

sdanseo

SugarHigh wrote: »

The guy had a loaded shotgun.

In a pub, no less. Plenty of people around. Was probably a split second thing, with no time to be running back to the boot to get the bean bags.

At the end of the day, if you walk into a pub with a loaded gun and point it about the place, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences.

CharlieCroker

+1

The guy was carrying a firearm, and i presume pointing it at either the AGS member or another member of the public. It doesn't matter if it was loaded or not.
He would have been warned to put it down and obviously refused!

It's a shame the guy got shot and injured but if it was between a headcase with a shotgun or a guard, i know which one i'd choose to be in hospital!

@Anxious: This would have prob been one of the worst times to use a less-lethal weapon. They're better for people with knives, swords etc, not firearms.

Beanbags/rubber bullets don't always work, especially is close proximity.

Tazer can't be used, electric shock causes muscles to contract, not the safest thing when the targets finger is on a trigger!!!!

Tear-gas, pepper spray and the like won't work, will blind the target. Again, not something you want with a firearm. The risk of the offender firing randomly is too great!

And they can only be used when there's time to wait for a unit that might be equipped with such equipment.

Any other suggestions?

Shield

I have a link to an article which shows how quick it is for a person to raise their gun from it being down by their side to start firing it randomly.

The article also shows why police will always come off looking like they didn't need to shoot, and biologically what happens to a human when a gun is pointed at them.

In the tests, by the time any of the participants had to assess the situation, they had already been shot a minimum of 4 times.

I'm going to see if I can dig it out because it makes for interesting reading.

I think it also went along with a TV program, which addresses the matter scientifically. Again, I'll see if I can dig that out and (copyright owner permitting), I'll see if I can post it here for download.

TheNog

Garda Ombudsman investigating Cork pub shooting

22/05/2010 - 08:55:30
The Garda Ombudsman Commission is investigating after a man was shot by gardaí after failing to drop a weapon.

The incident happened in a pub near Cork city yesterday evening.

At about at 6.40pm yesterday, a man in his 20s entered the Mo Chuisle Bar on Blarney St armed with a shotgun.

He began threatening staff and demanding to see the owner.

Gardaí were alerted and armed officers from the Regional Support Unit responded.

It is understood that the man defied orders to drop his weapon and a member of the Support Unit discharged one shot, wounding the man in the stomach.

He was rushed to Cork University Hospital where he underwent emergency surgery and is said to be in a stable condition this morning.

The Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy has referred the incident to Garda Ombudsman Commission.

Last night's incident is the second in which shots were fired at the pub. The gunman’s uncle is thought to have died two years ago following a scuffle when he was refused service at the pub.


Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/garda-ombudsman-investigating-cork-pub-shooting-458684.html#ixzz0oeAI5bcT

this is the second best outcome of this type of incident. The best outcome obviously being no injuries to the gunman, members of the public or Gardai.

It will be a while before full detials are released but I wish a speedy recovery to the gunman and emotional support to the Gardai involved.

Odysseus

TheNog wrote: »

this is the second best outcome of this type of incident. The best outcome obviously being no injuries to the gunman, members of the public or Gardai.

It will be a while before full detials are released but I wish a speedy recovery to the gunman and emotional support to the Gardai involved.

What the psych support side like in the Garda? I have a few members in private therapy over the years. For incidents like this is the a CISD Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Service. I used to be part of the HSE one, I know most Police Services have one but never heard of one over here.

boomer_ie

It would appear to me that the Guard in question has done everything right (this is based on the newspaper article btw), warning was issued and ignored and the guy was then shot, presumeably there was some threat to the Gardai or bystanders leading to the decision to shoot.

Anything else is only speculation and the story will come out when the Garda Ombudsman has completed their investigation.

That said, no matter what happens from here on in the Guard in question will be questioning themselves/ eating themselves up over whether it was necessary etc or not. My answer to them (if they are here) is gut decisions in heat of moment are mostly right and I for one am not going to question their decision going up against a guy with a shotgun in a crowded area!

CharlieCroker

CharlieCroker wrote: »

It's a shame the guy got shot and injured

I disagree. I think he got exactly what he had coming to him. A bullet in the stomache is actually the least he should've got. A shotgun at close proximity, I imagine, would do a lot more damage.


As was said on After Hours, if it weren't for AGS and that Garda in particular who took the shot, we could just as easily have been reading about a mass murder today.



To be fair;

Enter Pub + Angry + Shotgun + Pointing at people = Bullet from AGS

Seems like a fairly solid equation to me.


The Gardaì seem to have done it by the book and the guy had a lethal weapon. Fair play to AGS.



The only issue I have though, is, according to the article linked to in After Hours, they say a few shots were fired, but the guy was only hit once in the stomache. I find that a little worrying. I wouldn't mind the guy getting shot 20 times in the stomache, to be honest, but the thoughts that some of the bullets were going astray is a little distressing.

As said by others though, t'is all hear-say til we get an official report.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The only issue I have though, is, according to the article linked to in After Hours, they say a few shots were fired, but the guy was only hit once in the stomache. I find that a little worrying. I wouldn't mind the guy getting shot 20 times in the stomache, to be honest, but the thoughts that some of the bullets were going astray is a little distressing.

As said by others though, t'is all hear-say til we get an official report.

If it is true, I doubt the suspect was standing still with a big target stuck to his body.

foreign

foreign wrote: »

If it is true, I doubt the suspect was standing still with a big target stuck to his body.

Fair point, but he was in a pub. Typical Irish pubs aren't exactly the largest places in the world, so I can't imagine he had a lot of room to manouvre out of the way.

He was also hit in the stomache, so he didn't try the hollywood "hold an innocent person in front of you" move, either.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair point, but he was in a pub. Typical Irish pubs aren't exactly the largest places in the world, so I can't imagine he had a lot of room to manouvre out of the way.

He was also hit in the stomache, so he didn't try the hollywood "hold an innocent person in front of you" move, either.

As I said, at the moment everything is speculation. Other reports say there was one shot. And again, you don't know the pub so again can't say what happened.

foreign

foreign wrote: »

As I said, at the moment everything is speculation. Other reports say there was one shot. And again, you don't know the pub so again can't say what happened.

I'm aware it's all just speculation at the moment. I was just making a comment regarding what I read (like everyone else).

CharlieCroker

kkv, it amazes of that you're pleased that somebody got shot. I'm a guard, as are a few other posters here and i can almost promise you that none of us would WANT to, or be happy that, a person needed to be hurt to settle a situation. As for a number of rounds being fired, nobody here knows. All i'll say is that Those guys are trained to a very high standard.

CharlieCroker

CharlieCroker wrote: »

kkv, it amazes of that you're pleased that somebody got shot. I'm a guard, as are a few other posters here and i can almost promise you that none of us would WANT to, or be happy that, a person needed to be hurt to settle a situation. As for a number of rounds being fired, nobody here knows. All i'll say is that Those guys are trained to a very high standard.

To be honest, I find it astonishing that anyone would want him not to get hurt. He took a shotgun to a pub and aimed it at innocent people. He ignored Garda warnings to drop the weapon.

What the f*ck did he expect?!

I'd imagine there are many people who would be terrified of going to that pub again, and who will spend days, weeks, months, even, always looking over their shoulder. Having a shotgun shoved into your face in a threatening manner is not something most people will get over easily.

On top of that, it's about time AGS started to send a message to people that they won't tolerate or mess about with gun crime. You present a weapon in public, you get shot.

Simple stuff.

D-Generate

psni wrote: »

I have a link to an article which shows how quick it is for a person to raise their gun from it being down by their side to start firing it randomly.

The article also shows why police will always come off looking like they didn't need to shoot, and biologically what happens to a human when a gun is pointed at them.

In the tests, by the time any of the participants had to assess the situation, they had already been shot a minimum of 4 times.

I'm going to see if I can dig it out because it makes for interesting reading.

I think it also went along with a TV program, which addresses the matter scientifically. Again, I'll see if I can dig that out and (copyright owner permitting), I'll see if I can post it here for download.

I think that is featured in the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. Basically argues the case that human intuition is an intelligence unto itself and in many instances leads to a more positive outcome than a though through decision.

sdanseo

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. I think he got exactly what he had coming to him. A bullet in the stomache is actually the least he should've got.

Over the top and an unwelcome comment really. The man needed to be disarmed - past that it's not for us to say whether he deserved all he got. Yes it's wrong to have a loaded shotgun in a public place - but it sounds like a member of his family died in strange circumstances and it remains entirely plausible that he didn't set out to harm anyone, just frighten them maybe.

Very slight whiff of some gung-ho walter mittyness there tbh

monkeysox

While none of us like to see people getting hurt, I think it is reassuring that AGS dealt with that situation with what sounds like an appropriate level of response. As was said earlier, that man needed to be disarmed and tazer or other non-lethal means are not always safe options.

Compare this situation to any episode of cops and the chances are you'll see some guy getting shot about 56 times for just refusing to shut up!

As to the mans intentions and his state of mind, it's too easy to speculate here from the safety of the internet but an upset/distraught/depressed... (the possibilities are endless)... person can make a situation very stressful.

The challenge is to remain focused, have clear priorities in mind and maintain a professional approach to the situation.

cushtac

sdonn wrote: »

Yes it's wrong to have a loaded shotgun in a public place - but it sounds like a member of his family died in strange circumstances and it remains entirely plausible that he didn't set out to harm anyone, just frighten them maybe.

It also remains entirely plausible that he did intend to shoot someone, since he did bring a gun to an argument. 'Just frightening' someone with a weapon is a serious crime & and of itself and can be extremely traumatic for the victim, and as such it's not something to be dismissed.

The bottom line is he was ordered by armed Gardaí to drop the weapon, he failed to do so and suffered the consequences. It is entirely his own fault.

Zambia

sdonn wrote: »

it remains entirely plausible that he didn't set out to harm anyone, just frighten them maybe.

If that was the case he should have stopped playing the bogeyman when the RSU appeared. But I can see you are playing devils advocate here.

You are the only person who decides the level of force used against you by the police. A person can esclate and de-escalate this by complying, he did not comply.

Its sad a guy got shot but the police reaction seems text book. Not all good police work has a happy ending.

Shield

Aimed at nobody in particular, and because this is a very emotive subject, please remember that on boards we attack the post, not the poster.

Mod hat off:

The article I was talking about was in fact an episode of BBC's "Panorama" from 2006 called "When Cops Kill". It's not on YouTube which surprises me (there is one of the same name up there, but it's not the one I'm talking about).

It was a knee-jerk reaction program because of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2006. The aim of the programme was to try and give the general public an insight of what happens to police officer's biochemistry when they are put in a situation where they have less than a second to decide whether to shoot or not. The expert they sourced in the USA impressively demonstrated how no amount of training or simulation can ever prepare a human to react for that less-than-one-second period of time they have to take in the situation and make the decision.

I have the episode here and I'm going to contact the BBC and ask them about either getting it onto their iPlayer again, or allow me to stick it in YouTube myself in chunks for educational purposes.

bytey

Mod edit by Chief---

Please take a few days break from this forum.

Thanks.

sdanseo

cushtac wrote: »

It also remains entirely plausible that he did intend to shoot someone, since he did bring a gun to an argument. 'Just frightening' someone with a weapon is a serious crime & and of itself and can be extremely traumatic for the victim, and as such it's not something to be dismissed.

Zambia232 wrote: »

If that was the case he should have stopped playing the bogeyman when the RSU appeared. But I can see you are playing devils advocate here.

Of course both these statements are true, and I was far from dismissing the crime of threatening someone with a weapon - just pointing out that maybe a bullet in the stomach wasn't in fact "the least he should've got" as KKV said.

sdonn

sdonn wrote: »

Of course both these statements are true, and I was far from dismissing the crime of threatening someone with a weapon - just pointing out that maybe a bullet in the stomach wasn't in fact "the least he should've got" as KKV said.

Well what's the alternative?

In other words, put yourself in the Garda's shoes. Man has shotgun, busy pub, you give a warning and he ignores...


What's your plan of attack? Keep shouting warnings until he gets tired? Wait until there's a murder? Wait until there's a bullet coming at you?

I'm genuinely interested in what the alternative is here. I still think he's very lucky that he only got hit in the stomache. I think he deserved to be hit in the stomache. I'd be upset if AGS, the RSU in particular, turned up and did nothing.

They need to be seen to take a zero tolerance stance on this. I welcome this shooting as a good sign a move in the right direction. Too many of these armed scumbags think they're untouchable.

But I'm just rambling now... Back to my point... You seem to be of the opinion that him getting shot was a bad thing. What would you have done differently?

Shield

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he deserved to be hit in the stomache. I'd be upset if AGS, the RSU in particular, turned up and did nothing.

The difference seems to be that you are dispensing your own kind of justice, and you seem satisfied the man has been physically (and possible permanently) injured.

AGS are not there to shoot, injure or deliver the kind of summary justice you seem to have an insatiable appetite for. They arrest someone because they suspect an offence has been committed, and let the judiciary decide whether he has or hasn't. If he has, then the judiciary hand out the punishment.

You shoot to eliminate a threat, not to kill someone, not to inflict pain and suffering on the suspect, and certainly not because you feel he 'deserves' to be shot.

What if he had mental health issues? What if he was the victim of a 'tiger kidnapping' and was acting under duress?

There are so many "What if" questions you don't seem to have even considered, and I must say, I'm shocked at your "I think he deserved to be hit in the stomach" comment without having anywhere near full knowledge of the facts of this incident.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but in my own personal opinion (in other words, not as a boards.ie moderator), this remark has not done your excellent reputation on this forum any good.

sdanseo

You got it in one PSNI - KKV, I mean that your post stinks of "well i hope they plug him", as if you personally wish him ill will. As opposed to looking at the situation from a purely tactical point of view.

TheNog

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. I think he got exactly what he had coming to him. A bullet in the stomache is actually the least he should've got.

KKV it this comment above that has caused some posters to be unsettled and rightly so. No person deserves to be shot.

The action of shooting him would appear to be the only option left open to the members involved.

Should anyone be pleased?

Absolutely not.

Poccington

Well done to the RSU member involved.

He made a split second decision which could well have saved the lives of innocent people. A verbal warning was issued, the man obviously refused to drop his weapon and the RSU member decided to take the shot, which he did so successfully. He eliminated the threat using controlled, accurate fire and thankfully, there was no dead bodies to deal with it.

A job well done by members of AGS and shows the risks involved in their line of work.

maglite

From what i have heard locally there this is part of a longer story relating to the pub. Have to say if the rumours are true I feel sorry for the fella who got shot. I do also feel sorry for the Garda who took the shot, not least the amount of investigating and paper work that will ensue but on a human level it’s not nice to be put in that position.

What I would have found interesting though is the shot placement and indeed the weapon of choice. But I suppose as I was not there it’s going to be hard for me to criticise or speculate.

psni

psni wrote: »

The difference seems to be that you are dispensing your own kind of justice, and you seem satisfied the man has been physically (and possible permanently) injured.

AGS are not there to shoot, injure or deliver the kind of summary justice you seem to have an insatiable appetite for. They arrest someone because they suspect an offence has been committed, and let the judiciary decide whether he has or hasn't. If he has, then the judiciary hand out the punishment.

You shoot to eliminate a threat, not to kill someone, not to inflict pain and suffering on the suspect, and certainly not because you feel he 'deserves' to be shot.

What if he had mental health issues? What if he was the victim of a 'tiger kidnapping' and was acting under duress?

There are so many "What if" questions you don't seem to have even considered, and I must say, I'm shocked at your "I think he deserved to be hit in the stomach" comment without having anywhere near full knowledge of the facts of this incident.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but in my own personal opinion (in other words, not as a boards.ie moderator), this remark has not done your excellent reputation on this forum any good.

Whilst I respect your opinion and thoughts regarding this, I still fully feel that the man got what was coming to him.

If I went to a public place with a shotgun, aimed at innocent people and ignored an AGS request to drop the shotgun, I would expect to be shot.

From also flicking through the thread regarding this incident in After Hours, it would appear that I'm not alone in thinking such.


But I would also like to stress that I'm not trying to say that I feel the guy himself should die or never eat properly again or whatever. I don't know him. For all I know, he could be a former Garda himself, and an upstanding citizen who has never committed a crime before. For all I know, the Garda that shot him, could be a complete ass who has been wanting to lace someone with bullets since he got into a uniform.

I don't know any of that stuff. What I do know, is that a man went to a pub with a shotgun, refused to drop it when AGS arrived, and got shot in the stomache.

One of the reasons this brings a smile to my face is because it shows that AGS will shoot. RSU should not be a common sight, and when they do show up, they should be a zero-tolerance approach.

That zero tolerance approach is what happened in this shooting. It shows that AGS will shoot you. They have potential to kill you and they have no issue doing so. That, I believe, is exactly the message that needs to be sent out to people.


The judicial system of Ireland is a waste of time and filled with slap-on-the-wrist punishments. People know that they don't have to worry about going in front of a Judge because, unless they were behind the Holocaust, they'll be told to wise up and be let on their way.

At least, if AGS are seen to be taking a hardline stance against it, then some scumbags somewhere might cop on. I live in a dirtball estate, filled with scumbags. My sister, whom I loathe, is one of these scumbags. She has committed more crimes than I could count. From petty things like shoplifting to biting a Garda's arm. Over the past 21 years of my life, I have learned that there is absolutely no fear of AGS or going to court with these people.


It's unfortunate that this event even had to unfold, but someone had to be made an example of.


Some people might think that I'm a complete scumbag myself for making such comments, and that's fine. But my opinion on this matter will not change.

I don't like to see anyone getting hurt, but if someone sets out with the intention of hurting other people, then I firmly believe that person should have the worst possible outcome of any scenario he starts.

1922

maglite wrote: »

What I would have found interesting though is the shot placement and indeed the weapon of choice. But I suppose as I was not there it’s going to be hard for me to criticise or speculate.

centre body mass??? correct place to shoot

meathstevie

No matter what the situation, when a member of a police service in a European democracy uses potentially lethal force there's two questions that need an answer.

1. Was the use of force necessary to prevent the loss of life or serious injury to either the police officers on the scene or members of the public ?

2. Was the use of force proportionate to the treath ?

If you can answer yes to both questions you have the problem solved

TheNog

Deleted User wrote: »

Whilst I respect your opinion and thoughts regarding this, I still fully feel that the man got what was coming to him.

If I went to a public place with a shotgun, aimed at innocent people and ignored an AGS request to drop the shotgun, I would expect to be shot.

From also flicking through the thread regarding this incident in After Hours, it would appear that I'm not alone in thinking such.


But I would also like to stress that I'm not trying to say that I feel the guy himself should die or never eat properly again or whatever. I don't know him. For all I know, he could be a former Garda himself, and an upstanding citizen who has never committed a crime before. For all I know, the Garda that shot him, could be a complete ass who has been wanting to lace someone with bullets since he got into a uniform.

I don't know any of that stuff. What I do know, is that a man went to a pub with a shotgun, refused to drop it when AGS arrived, and got shot in the stomache.

One of the reasons this brings a smile to my face is because it shows that AGS will shoot. RSU should not be a common sight, and when they do show up, they should be a zero-tolerance approach.

That zero tolerance approach is what happened in this shooting. It shows that AGS will shoot you. They have potential to kill you and they have no issue doing so. That, I believe, is exactly the message that needs to be sent out to people.


The judicial system of Ireland is a waste of time and filled with slap-on-the-wrist punishments. People know that they don't have to worry about going in front of a Judge because, unless they were behind the Holocaust, they'll be told to wise up and be let on their way.

At least, if AGS are seen to be taking a hardline stance against it, then some scumbags somewhere might cop on. I live in a dirtball estate, filled with scumbags. My sister, whom I loathe, is one of these scumbags. She has committed more crimes than I could count. From petty things like shoplifting to biting a Garda's arm. Over the past 21 years of my life, I have learned that there is absolutely no fear of AGS or going to court with these people.


It's unfortunate that this event even had to unfold, but someone had to be made an example of.


Some people might think that I'm a complete scumbag myself for making such comments, and that's fine. But my opinion on this matter will not change.

I don't like to see anyone getting hurt, but if someone sets out with the intention of hurting other people, then I firmly believe that person should have the worst possible outcome of any scenario he starts.

I think your post is advocating street justice similar to what is dished out by criminals which, as a contributer to this forum from its inception, I find disturbing and most certainly not suited to this forum. It may be ok for After Hours but here I dont find it acceptable. This is a forum for Emergency Services who dedicate themselves to protect life so to say "he deserved what he got" goes against everything we stand for.

The armed section of AGS are there to combat threats in a professional manner which can range from negiotation to lethal means. From time to time it may be necessary to shoot a person but it is never done because they deserved it.

MagicSean

Didn't the man go there with a loaded shotgun to find a particular employee? One can only imagine what street justice he had in mind. From what I have read so far it seems to be a text book case for the use of a firearm. I haven't read anything about where he got the weapon though. If he was on temp release from prison I would hope it wasn't his own licenced firearm.

monkeysox

KKV

Where should I start...
You have ignored several "warning shots" yourself here in the above discussion, senior members of this forum and mods have subtly told you that your comments are a little out of order.
Sure, you are entitled to your opinion and healthy discussion is encouraged. However, it's the way you say it that I find offensive...

"One of the reasons this brings a smile to my face is because it shows that AGS will shoot. RSU should not be a common sight, and when they do show up, they should be a zero-tolerance approach."
Why does a member of the public being shot by the Gardai bring a smile to your face? Do you think this is a healthy reaction?


"That zero tolerance approach is what happened in this shooting. It shows that AGS will shoot you. They have potential to kill you and they have no issue doing so."
Do you think the Gardai don't have an issue with shooting someone? Would the RSU officers involved in this incident agree with you?
.

"scumbags...dirtball estate...filled with scumbags... My sister, whom I loathe..." Your attitude stinks!

"Over the past 21 years of my life..." I'm guessing thats it, 21 years!

"someone had to be made an example of." ...NO, that was not the intention


"Some people might think that I'm a complete scumbag myself for making such comments, and that's fine." ..... you said it kid!

Your anger and personalisation of your feelings towards this situation shows me that you are not suited to this line of work. As said in a previous post, your comments are not appropriate in an Emergency Services forum.

pat58

He got off lightly, in most other CIVILISED countries a sniper would plased in position,and he would have being taken down with more than likely a 300 win mag and would have no chance of survival by the fact he walked into a crowed place with a loaded fire arm,in my oppinion he lost his right to be treated with kindness and respect ,what did he expect,do peopel realise what damage and death can be caused by a fire arm at close range or any range, just my 2cents

sdanseo

monkeysox wrote: »

You have ignored several "warning shots" yourself here in the above discussion, senior members of this forum and mods have subtly told you that your comments are a little out of order.

In fairness a quick look tells us he has the most contributions of anyone in the thread albeit if he hasn't been here nearly as long. His opinion is flawed, but not without value.

monkeysox wrote: »

I'm guessing thats it, 21 years!

Same age as me, and thus irrelevant

I think there's been more than enough slating him for it though, my intention was to cause him to think about what he said for a second - didn't expect a hoohah about it!

In fact, an interesting display of our dual standards here on boards - plenty of talk of it here and KKV's comments look like a compliment compared to some of the Walters over here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055918485

Clearly the ES forum is a place for taking these things a tad more seriously.

I'll make this my last post in this thread.


First off, if anyone actually got or felt upset regarding my comments on here, then I'm sorry. I've re-read the thread from the beginning and I do admit, at times, my comments were a little over the top and perhaps a little too blunt for a topic that seems to easily hit a nerve.

That said, I do still believe that any person who uses a weapon in a threatening manner in public and ignores Garda warnings, should be shot at. Fair enough, if they drop it and give up, then an arrest is fine, but RSU are a rare sight, and I believe that in order for them to keep a serious image, they must shoot when necessary. I feel that the Cork case (or what we have heard of it) was a time when it was necessary to shoot.


So, whilst I do still stand by my opinion on the matter, I apologise to anyone who may have gotten upset, annoyed or frustrated at my comments.

monkeysox

Fair play to ya

sdanseo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll make this my last post in this thread.
So, whilst I do still stand by my opinion on the matter, I apologise to anyone who may have gotten upset, annoyed or frustrated at my comments.

Relax, nobody took it to heart.

Zambia

maglite wrote: »

What I would have found interesting though is the shot placement and indeed the weapon of choice. But I suppose as I was not there it’s going to be hard for me to criticise or speculate.

Sorry Maglite but what was the weapon of choice. I had assumed the shot was taken with an MP 7?

But from the articles I have access to I cant see any mention.

In relation to KKV I considered this for a while and I do see where he/you are coming from. In a society that the public rarely see justice done it is natural that an immediate punishment is considered a satisfactory outcome. Even though an offender may be charged and sentenced, if the victim does not get told the result how will they know? In the case here all and sundry know he did not walk away with a slap on the wrist.

I remember a possible urban Myth once where a bloke stabbed a doorman , the other doormen got the guy. They handed him to the gardai and the "story" was the guy was driven the long route back to the station in the back of a transit with 2 gardai doing the old riverdance on him. Whenever this story was told everyone did in fact smile including myself at the time. As I consider this I began to wonder if the gardai had in fact shot him in the ass in the back of the van would we have all still smiled? Chances are we would.

So while I still think it wrong to want the bloke shot I have been guilty in the past of relishing in the thought of a well placed slap or to directed at a deserving scumbag. Which by the same rational is also wrong.

Ethics eh always f**king with your head?

maglite

I'm not commenting on what I think is right or wrong, when I refereed to weapon it was their "firearm" as distinct from the less than lethal option, be it Taser, bean bag, spray etc. I honestly expected moaning about the fact he was injured and not killed, leaving the option for a less than lethal in the court of public opinion. I am under the "unfounded" impression of AGS if they shoot, they to shoot to kill not shoot to injure.

When I read stomach I saw belly, which given the size of the pub would seem to be a deliberate shot to injure, however if we are talking about the actual stomach, in terms of that is the main wound, then shot placement would be fairly center on the body.

Though this is a complete case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Truly a situation I would not wish on someone, on either side. The injured party if obviously going through a lot after the death of his relative.

Scan Man

I'm normally a "human rights/they should have used less-than-lethal-weapons" type but in this case (from the details so far) I think the responding Gardai used force which was proportionate to the threat to themselves and members of the public.

There's so many complications, and while I'm not a Garda, I can't imagine being confident going up against a shotgun with a taser. It takes time to pacify someone with a taser (both barbs must hit the person to deliver the max charge, etc), the shotgun only needs to be pointed roughly in a direction and one pull of the trigger or both triggers. Either way it was the decision of the responding Gardai as to the level of the threat, and the most effective and most assessable weapon in the time they had to respond.

From the media reports I've saw, the shot was taken with a Sig Sauer P226, which is the version used by the Garda ERU, and I assume is used by the RSUs.

Zambia

maglite wrote: »

I'm not commenting on what I think is right or wrong, when I refereed to weapon it was their "firearm" as distinct from the less than lethal option, be it Taser, bean bag, spray etc. I honestly expected moaning about the fact he was injured and not killed, leaving the option for a less than lethal in the court of public opinion. I am under the "unfounded" impression of AGS if they shoot, they to shoot to kill not shoot to injure.

ah my bad. I thought that was on a choice of firearm

Disregard

nutts_77

Gardai shoot at the central body mass, and they shoot to stop. That is, to stop a person from doing whatever that person is doing at the time. They do not shoot to injure, or to kill.

Morpheus

Correct,

Centre Body Mass shots, they arent snipers, Rangers or the SAS and its not doctrine to use headshots when storming a room - this method is a tactic used e.g. where targets have weapons aimed at hostages, without being too disgusting, the reasoning is that if a targets brain is sufficiently destroyed, there will be less chance of a reflex trigger pull killing innocents, also its very hard to wear a kevlar vest on your face.

A centre mass hit will ruin your day every time and probably make pulling the trigger the least of your worries.

Contrary to popular belief, this isnt hollywood, I wouldnt wager on having less chance of dying, theres many vital organs packed into a bigger target including heart lungs spinal cord etc.

The target is also bigger than a head sized one so theres less chance of missing and hitting something or someone you dont want to hit.

Im feel sorry for all involved here, nobody wants to have to shoot someone, but I believe the AGS did a very professional job.

bravestar

Morphéus wrote: »

Correct,

Centre Body Mass shots, they arent snipers, Rangers or the SAS and its not doctrine to use headshots when storming a room - this method is a tactic used e.g. where targets have weapons aimed at hostages, without being too disgusting, the reasoning is that if a targets brain is sufficiently destroyed, there will be less chance of a reflex trigger pull killing innocents, also its very hard to wear a kevlar vest on your face.

A centre mass hit will ruin your day every time and probably make pulling the trigger the least of your worries.

Contrary to popular belief, this isnt hollywood, I wouldnt wager on having less chance of dying, theres many vital organs packed into a bigger target including heart lungs spinal cord etc.

The target is also bigger than a head sized one so theres less chance of missing and hitting something or someone you dont want to hit.

Im feel sorry for all involved here, nobody wants to have to shoot someone, but I believe the AGS did a very professional job.

Can't leave out over penetration too. The last thing wanted would be for a round to go through, the head, and into an innocent bystander, or a fragment of it to do the same. Center of mass shots help to keep it all inside the intended target and tranfer the kinetic energy into the target, rather than through it, for knockdown power.