Is it a good thing that the Gardai are not armed?

paky

In the past five years the PSNI have shot dead two people in the North for what would appear to be minor offences. The first victim was a guy who had stolen a car but was under the influence of drugs and was shot dead for not switching off his car engine at a police checkpoint. The second guy was shot dead after robbing a petrol station with a knife, and was half way up the street after been shot in the back. To me it would appear that both offences committed by both guys didnt warrant a death sentence, and i think the actions of the police officers involved were excessive. However the garda ERU were also involved in the shooting dead of two post office robbers back in 2005 but one of the men were armed and called upon to drop his weapon. It would appear that the possession of weapons and the danger they posed to the gardai warranted the gardai to fire upon them? But i'd imagine the gardai could have handled the situation better since they had intelligence that the post office would be robbed that morning. But in general gardai dont carry firearms, so would you think this is a good thing?

kincsem

Guns kill and maim.

starbelgrade

Giving the Gardai guns would be giving them a licence to shoot themselves in the foot both literally & methaphorically.

mathie

In before the armless.

jester77

paky wrote: »

In the past five years the PSNI have shot dead two people in the North for what would appear to be minor offences. The first victim was a guy who had stolen a car but was under the influence of drugs and was shot dead for not switching off his car engine at a police checkpoint. The second guy was shot dead after robbing a petrol station with a knife, and was half way up the street after been shot in the back. To me it would appear that both offences committed by both guys didnt warrant a death sentence, and i think the actions of the police officers involved were excessive. However the garda ERU were also involved in the shooting dead of two post office robbers back in 2005 but one of the men were armed and called upon to drop his weapon. It would appear that the possession of weapons and the danger they posed to the gardai warranted the gardai to fire upon them? But i'd imagine the gardai could have handled the situation better since they had intelligence that the post office would be robbed that morning. But in general gardai dont carry firearms, so would you think this is a good thing?

If they weren't acting the bollox they wouldn't have been shot.

Where To

Anyone who doesn't believe AGS should be armed should be shot!

paky

jester77 wrote: »

If they weren't acting the bollox they wouldn't have been shot.

if the coppers werent carrying guns they wouldnt have been shot either

Wile E. Coyote

paky wrote: »

It would appear that the possession of weapons and the danger they posed to the gardai warranted the gardai to fire upon them?

You're taking the p*ss a little aren't you? It they can't shoot someone in possesion of a gun who poses a threat to them and everyone else around who can they shoot?

paky

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

You're taking the p*ss a little aren't you? It they can't shoot someone in possesion of a gun who poses a threat to them and everyone else around who can they shoot?

they new the robbery was going to take place. they could of handled it better

Wile E. Coyote

paky wrote: »

if the coppers werent carrying guns they wouldnt have been shot either

The 'coppers' are trained and were legally carrying guns. There's a big difference.

Junco Partner

I think your everyday guard on the street should have a sidearm. Fairplay to the guards who can walk the streets without them in areas where the criminals are armed better than our army. they are braver men and women then I. I don't see why they shouldn't especially in this day and age where the irish criminal is well on it's way to punching in the same weight class as the international hoodlum. streets aren't as safe as they were 40 years ago so give the coppers guns.

Wile E. Coyote

paky wrote: »

they new the robbery was going to take place. they could of handled it better

How exactly? Talk us through how it should have been handled. Two fellas walk out of the post office with loaded guns, armed guards tell them to drop the weapons which they don't do. Then what? Ask them again and say please?

jester77

paky wrote: »

if the coppers werent carrying guns they wouldnt have been shot either

And if they weren't shot the first guy could have took off in car and caused a serious accident, and the second guy might have stabbed someone with the knife he was holding.

triseke

I don't think the guards should be armed with pistols. The tendency to use them would be higher, as obviously they are more available.

The rank and file guards have been unarmed since the founding of the state, even through some very difficult and dangerous times. I don't think they need to start carrying guns now.

28064212

paky wrote: »

they new the robbery was going to take place. they could of handled it better

How exactly? And don't give me an answer "in hindsight". Given the exact information that they had before the incident, come up with a plan that would have had a better chance of success than what happened

RATM

I remember years ago in my home town an armed detective finished his night shift and went down to the early house for a few jars. When in the toilets he left his gun on the cistern when taking a crap and then walked off without his piece.

A few minutes later a pissed regular walked in, saw the gun and decided to fire a shot of for the craic- into the toilet bowl. The whole bowl smashed and water flooded everywhere.

So to answer your question OP, no the Gardai should not be armed.

Paparazzo

f0ggy92 wrote: »

I think your everyday guard on the street should have a sidearm. Fairplay to the guards who can walk the streets without them in areas where the criminals are armed better than our army. they are braver men and women then I. I don't see why they shouldn't especially in this day and age where the irish criminal is well on it's way to punching in the same weight class as the international hoodlum. streets aren't as safe as they were 40 years ago so give the coppers guns.

That's the problem. Outside O'Connell Street in dublin, guards don't walk the street.

AeoNGriM

I believe that anyone who commits armed robbery waives the right to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the response of armed cops. The keyword is armed, and if someone is armed and refusing to obey directions to stop and give up, then shoot the cnut.

As for the chap in the car on drugs not switching his engine off, that's a procedural issue and nothing to do with the fact that the PSNI were armed. Same thing happens in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is to safeguard the lives of the soldiers/police on duty.

In relation to the response of the PSNI in this situation, maybe they felt this guy was concealing an explosive and that their lives were at risk. At the end of the day it's a judgement call, and they have to follow procedure.

Also something to consider, what if the driver had made his escape and hit and killed someone, out of his mind as he was on drugs? I can't really have any sympathy for him joyriding in a car, out of his face on drugs, in a position where he poses a danger to others.

paky

28064212 wrote: »

How exactly? And don't give me an answer "in hindsight". Given the exact information that they had before the incident, come up with a plan that would have had a better chance of success than what happened

how did the criminals know that the builders carrying pistols were gardai?

they should of arrested them before they went into the post office. would have prevented the post office staff from been exposed to danger. isnt that the gardais job?

Junco Partner

Paparazzo wrote: »

That's the problem. Outside O'Connell Street in dublin, guards don't walk the street.

well take what i said there as including patrol cars and all manners in which the guards carry out their work. Back in my area there's always patrol cars and you do see the odd beat walking cop.

Duggy747

Even though I'd have done nothing wrong, there's just something unsettling about a Garda watching you.

Sort of like walking out of a shop without buying anything and trying not to act like a thief :pac:

seamus

paky wrote: »

they should of arrested them before they went into the post office. would have prevented the post office staff from been exposed to danger. isnt that the gardais job?

You can't arrest someone if they haven't committed a crime.

They could possibly be arrested on conspiracy to commit a crime and unlawful possession of a firearm. What's that, a slap on the wrists, maybe a 6-month suspended sentence? With a good solicitor, they could even have gotten off.

Then the scumbags are free to reschedule their crime for another date and possibly get away with it. Instead you let them commit their crime, then you arrest them and lock them up.

Scumbag committed a crime with a weapon, was given a opportunity to relinquinsh the weapon, refused, got shot, bingo-bango, job done and no loss to society.

28064212

paky wrote: »

how did the criminals know that the builders carrying pistols were gardai?

What? I asked you to come up with a plan for the gardaí, not the criminals

paky wrote: »

they should of arrested them before they went into the post office. would have prevented the post office staff from been exposed to danger. isnt that the gardais job?

Arrested them for what crime exactly? What information did they have?

paky

28064212 wrote: »

What? I asked you to come up with a plan for the gardaí, not the criminals


Arrested them for what crime exactly? What information did they have?

possession of weapons with intent to rob a post office

Doinker

paky wrote: »

how did the criminals know that the builders carrying pistols were gardai?

they should of arrested them before they went into the post office. would have prevented the post office staff from been exposed to danger. isnt that the gardais job?

Because there would be less to charge them with.

28064212

paky wrote: »

possession of weapons with intent to rob a post office

And can you post a link that shows they had evidence of this?

Antomus Prime

Ive been saying for years that they should be armed!!! The biggest problem in the country (imo) is that criminals dont have any fear of the gardaí, and the majority of people dont respect them. Put a gun on their belts and those attitudes will soon change!!! If the guys theyre out chasing can get their hands on a firearm with ease then they should be equipped to fight fire with fire!!!!

Wile E. Coyote

paky wrote: »

how did the criminals know that the builders carrying pistols were gardai?

they should of arrested them before they went into the post office. would have prevented the post office staff from been exposed to danger. isnt that the gardais job?

They could have only arrested one of them for posession of the gun and that would be treated as a mickey mouse offense at best. It's very hard to prosecute someone for something they may or may not be planning despite what you might see on tv.

TheMilkyPirate

The right gardai are armed already. I'd hate to imagine what would happen if your regular garda was armed. Half of them are on permanent power trips and i've seen them do things in my town i wouldn't wish on anyone. I was arrested and beaten up for messing (we were wrestling) with a friend on the town because i was drunk Just like the other 400 people on the town that night. I'd rather not have them pointing a gun in my face as well for no reason thanks.

Antomus Prime

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

It's very hard to prosecute someone for something they may or may not be planning despite what you might see on tv.

Unless you're Tom Cruize :cool:

Doinker

28064212 wrote: »

How exactly? And don't give me an answer "in hindsight". Given the exact information that they had before the incident, come up with a plan that would have had a better chance of success than what happened

By using non-lethal weapons - taiser, stun-guns, stun grenade, tear gas, plastic bullets etc. Thats if you meassure success by not killing people.

Galtee

Gardai shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. Instead, the legal system should be looked at and tougher laws introduced for criminals being in possession of a firearm so that the gardai wouldn't have to risk innocent lives just so they can ensure there's a greater sentence waiting for a criminal.
Ffs, when you walk into a post office with a firearm there should be only one reason for this in the eyes of the law and a sentence should be handed out accordingly.

Wile E. Coyote

Antomus Prime wrote: »

Unless you're Tom Cruize :cool:

Or the A-Team. Rumour has it in 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground.

28064212

Doinker wrote: »

By using non-lethal weapons - taiser, stun-guns, stun grenade, tear gas, plastic bullets etc. Thats if you meassure success by not killing people.

And you've evaluated all these, decided which would mean the absolute minimum risk to the general public for this particular situation given the information they had prior to the incident?

seamus

Doinker wrote: »

By using non-lethal weapons - taiser, stun-guns, stun grenade, tear gas, plastic bullets etc. Thats if you meassure success by not killing people.

Non-lethal weapons are suprisingly ineffective against guns.
In fact, using non-lethal weapons against an armed assailant is even more dangerous than using lethal weapons, as the assailant is still free to fire their weapon in fright, anger or panic, and may result in injuries to bystanders that would otherwise not have occurred.

Wile E. Coyote

Doinker wrote: »

By using non-lethal weapons - taiser, stun-guns, stun grenade, tear gas, plastic bullets etc. Thats if you meassure success by not killing people.

Hahahahaha we can barely afford to equip our police force with stab vests and your talking about stun grenades and tear gas. Any idea how close you have to be to use a taser and what happens when you shoot an armed man with a plastic bullet other than him shooting back with real ones?

Antomus Prime

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Or the A-Team. Rumour has it in 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground.

Today they survive as soldiers of fortune........... If you have a problem, and If you can find them.......... maybe you can hire, The A-Team!!!!

But as awesome as they are they cant see into the future like Cruise did in minority report

Galtee

LOL, I don't know why the A-Team were never brought in to run the country, they always seemed to be able to solve any crime in under an hour when you take off the ad time. Except maybe the odd time they ran over into a different episode but I'd settle for crime stopped in under 2 hours at worst.

Doinker

28064212 wrote: »

And you've evaluated all these, decided which would mean the absolute minimum risk to the general public for this particular situation given the information they had prior to the incident?

No I haven't.

You asked for a suggestion for a plan for a better outcome, to that which occured.

Are you able to dismiss the suggestion of the use of non-lethal weapons in this case?

conor.hogan.2

They should not be armed, at all.

28064212

Doinker wrote: »

No I haven't.

You asked for a suggestion for a plan for a better outcome, to that which occured.

No I didn't. I asked for a plan, not a suggestion. A detailed breakdown investigating every possible option using all available data to come up with the best approach

Doinker wrote: »

Are you able to dismiss the suggestion of the use of non-lethal weapons in this case?

I didn't dismiss them. I think the gardaí are better placed to make the decisions, instead of a poster on an internet forum who doesn't have access to their information second-guessing them after the event

Doinker

seamus wrote: »

Non-lethal weapons are suprisingly ineffective against guns.
In fact, using non-lethal weapons against an armed assailant is even more dangerous than using lethal weapons, as the assailant is still free to fire their weapon in fright, anger or panic, and may result in injuries to bystanders that would otherwise not have occurred.

Point taken.

Depends on what was used. If that armed robber was shot with four plastic bullets, I don't think he'd get getting up too fast.

Also, in this case the Gardai knew the robbery was taking place, the opportunity was there to clear the street of bystanders etc.

I also meant that non-lethal weapons could be used, with the back up of lethal weapons.

BrokenArrows

If the Gardai were an armed force they might eventually get a little respect.

As is guaranteed to happen police shootings would rise but the question you need to ask is whether thats a good thing or not.

Some scumbag attacks a cop with a knife and the guards only defense is his training. If the Guard was able to pull a gun (not shoot) it would instantly stop the scumbag in his tracks and the Guard would be able to make an arrest.

Wile E. Coyote

Doinker wrote: »

Point taken.

Depends on what was used. If that armed robber was shot with four plastic bullets, I don't think he'd get getting up too fast.

Also, in this case the Gardai knew the robbery was taking place, the opportunity was there to clear the street of bystanders etc.

I also meant that non-lethal weapons could be used, with the back up of lethal weapons.

There's your first problem right there. In such a serious situation like that you can't have such an uncertain outcome. What happens if he does get back up or simply starts shooting while on the ground?

And Im sure the area was clear of bystanders but their own lives were still at risk. At the end of the day if the gunman had put down the gun when he was instructed he'd still be alive and so would his friend. Then there would have been no need to use lethal or non-lethal force.

Antomus Prime

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

There's your first problem right there. In such a serious situation like that you can't have such an uncertain outcome. What happens if he does get back up or simply starts shooting while on the ground?

And Im sure the area was clear of bystanders but their own lives were still at risk. At the end of the day if the gunman had put down the gun when he was instructed he'd still be alive and so would his friend. Then there would have been no need to use lethal or non-lethal force.

Bingo!!!!

Manic Moran

triseke wrote: »

I don't think the guards should be armed with pistols. The tendency to use them would be higher, as obviously they are more available.

The rank and file guards have been unarmed since the founding of the state, even through some very difficult and dangerous times. I don't think they need to start carrying guns now.

Nice principle, until you end up being the Gard suffering the nasty effect of being that rare statistic, in which case the 'need' for a firearm suddenly changes from being academic to rather urgent.

Considering how many countries in Europe arm their police, vs how many don't seem to be suffering any particular ill-effects from it, I think it's a non-argument. If the issue is that the organisation which the State and the citizens of the State have entrusted utterly with the ensuring of civil order cannot be considered as responsible as, say, that of the Belgians or Germans, then the nation's problems are far more severe than simply wondering about if they might become a bit trigger happy.

NTM

Galtee

I wonder how many such situations there have been if ever where an unarmed guard has been shot? I honestly don't know but can't remember any off hand. All situations where there are firearms involved are tended to by the branch and they are suitably equipped. That particular system seems to work fine as it is. I would stipulate however that I believe there may be a requirement for tougher law with regard to possession which may deter some criminals from carrying guns. Also, the guards won't have to wait until a crime is carried out before they can be sure that a long sentence is handed out to a criminal, as it stands criminals seem to have to be caught spending their stolen money on prostitutes with guns in stolen cars before they can get done for a crime.

kincsem

RATM wrote: »

I remember years ago in my home town an armed detective finished his night shift and went down to the early house for a few jars. When in the toilets he left his gun on the cistern when taking a crap and then walked off without his piece.

A few minutes later a pissed regular walked in, saw the gun and decided to fire a shot of for the craic- into the toilet bowl. The whole bowl smashed and water flooded everywhere.

So to answer your question OP, no the Gardai should not be armed.

Not flushing can be annoying to the next user.

klong

Galtee wrote: »

I wonder how many such situations there have been if ever where an unarmed guard has been shot? I honestly don't know but can't remember any off hand. All situations where there are firearms involved are tended to by the branch and they are suitably equipped. That particular system seems to work fine as it is. I would stipulate however that I believe there may be a requirement for tougher law with regard to possession which may deter some criminals from carrying guns. Also, the guards won't have to wait until a crime is carried out before they can be sure that a long sentence is handed out to a criminal, as it stands criminals seem to have to be caught spending their stolen money on prostitutes with guns in stolen cars before they can get done for a crime.

Take a look through http://www.garda.ie/honour/default.aspx

kincsem

klong wrote: »

Take a look through http://www.garda.ie/honour/default.aspx

This supports not arming Gardai.

On 25th September, 1946, Garda James Byrne and Garda Daniel Joseph Duff were on armed protection duty on a farm at Mount Catherine, Pallasgreen, Co. Limerick. Both men appeared to be on friendly terms when leaving the Station.

Garda Daniel Joseph Duff subsequently stated that an argument arose between them regarding the performance of the protection duty to which they were allocated. The argument became very heated and Garda Duff alleged that Garda Byrne made a movement as if to draw his gun. Garda Daniel Joseph Duff drew his revolver and shot Garda Byrne twice. Garda Byrne died at the scene.

At the Central Criminal Court on 21st November, 1946 Garda Daniel Joseph Duff was convicted of the murder of Garda James Byrne. He was sentenced to death, however this was commuted to Penal Servitude for life.

Sofa King Great

kincsem wrote: »

This supports not arming Gardai.

On 25th September, 1946, Garda James Byrne and Garda Daniel Joseph Duff were on armed protection duty on a farm at Mount Catherine, Pallasgreen, Co. Limerick. Both men appeared to be on friendly terms when leaving the Station.

Garda Daniel Joseph Duff subsequently stated that an argument arose between them regarding the performance of the protection duty to which they were allocated. The argument became very heated and Garda Duff alleged that Garda Byrne made a movement as if to draw his gun. Garda Daniel Joseph Duff drew his revolver and shot Garda Byrne twice. Garda Byrne died at the scene.

At the Central Criminal Court on 21st November, 1946 Garda Daniel Joseph Duff was convicted of the murder of Garda James Byrne. He was sentenced to death, however this was commuted to Penal Servitude for life.

That was one incident in 65 years ago.

This is a reason enough to arm them:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rise-in-garda-death-threats-causes-alarm-2960381.html